MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS

Transcription

1 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS Washington Office on Latin America Center for Development and Population Activities

2 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS CONTENTS CONTENTS Acknowledgments Section One: Overview 1 Introduction to the Manual 2 Basic Principles of Facilitating Advocacy Events Section Two: Training Guides for General Workshops 1 Introduction to Advocacy 2 A Step-by-Step Approach to Participatory Planning of Advocacy Initiatives Section Three: Step-by-Step Training Guides Step 1: Identify and Analyze the Problem Step 2: Formulate the Proposal Step 3: Analyze the Decision-Making Space Step 4: Analyze Channels of Influence Step 5: Do a SWOT Analysis Step 6: Design Advocacy Strategies Step 7: Develop an Activity Plan Step 8: Carry Out Continuous Evaluation Section Four: Appendixes 1 Practical Tips on How to Facilitate Training Sessions 2 Preparation of Minutes 3 Group Exercises WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 1

3 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is a nonprofit policy, research, and advocacy organization, founded in 1974 by religious and other civil society leaders. WOLA promotes human rights, democracy, and social and economic justice in Latin America and the Caribbean and encourages a United States foreign policy that contributes to the achievement of those goals. WOLA s Advocacy Training Program in Central America was established in 1996 to train civil society organizations in the region in the use of advocacy methodologies and techniques. The program seeks to strengthen the capacity of these organizations to influence local, national, and international policy-makers on decisions about key policies and programs. The overarching goal of the program is to contribute to the development of a democratic culture in Central America by promoting values such as equality, gender and ethnic equity, respect for diversity, dignity, tolerance, and human solidarity. This manual is the product of a team effort by the staff of the Central America Advocacy Training Program and is based on extensive field experience in that region. It was developed in by Patrick Baltazar and Andrés McKinley, with important contributions from Angélica Alarcón, Joshua Lichtenstein, and Susan Peacock, under the supervision of Danuta Sacher. It contains conceptual and practical tools to increase the effectiveness of individuals and organizations that seek to strengthen and assist advocacy initiatives through training, planning, and evaluation efforts. While the original Spanish-language manual was developed for use in Central America, this Englishlanguage edition is intended for broad use in other regions of the world, including Africa, Asia, and English-speaking countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The editing and publication of the manual are the result of a joint effort by WOLA and the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA). The manual was translated from Spanish to English by Susan Peacock, with support from Bread for the World (Germany). We would like to thank the Asociación Mujer Vamos Adelante (AMVA) in Guatemala for its suggestions on how to incorporate a gender perspective into the manual. AMVA s review of the manual was recommended by participants in the Training School for Policy Advocacy that was carried out jointly by WOLA and CEDPA between November 2002 and February We hope this manual will be helpful to those persons and organizations that are working to consolidate human rights, democracy, and social justice through advocacy in Latin America and beyond. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 2

4 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 Section One: Overview WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 3

5 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION TO MANUAL INTRODUCTION TO THE MANUAL This manual is the product of six years of experience in Central America, facilitating advocacy training sessions and working in cooperation with specific advocacy campaigns. It offers conceptual and methodological tools to persons who wish to train civil society groups in the participatory planning of advocacy initiatives aimed at changing public policies and programs so that they benefit those in society who are traditionally marginalized. The manual is organized into four sections: Section 1 provides an overview of the manual and of the basic principles for facilitating events. These principles cover key areas that all facilitators should keep in mind when undertaking any training, planning, or evaluation activity intended to strengthen efforts to change public policies and programs. Section 2 consists of two training guides for general workshops The first focuses on the concept of advocacy, understood both as a change process and as a way to exercise power. A full conceptual understanding of advocacy is key to the planning of successful advocacy initiatives. The second guide in this section introduces the eight steps that make up WOLA s basic methodology for the planning of advocacy campaigns. Section 3, the most extensive, consists of training guides for each of the eight steps. Finally, Section 4 contains several appendixes with additional practical material for general reference. It includes a sample workshop agenda, suggestions on how to take minutes, and a selection of group exercises for use in workshops. Using the Training Guides Each of the 10 training guides, two general and one for each of the eight steps, is organized in a similar way. Each begins with a summary page listing the learning objectives, key concepts, practical techniques, and learning indicators for the guide. Next, key concepts are explained in detail. The core of each guide is a set of practical techniques that can be used in training sessions, with instructions for using each one. Most of the guides include worksheets to use with the techniques, as well as graphic resources that facilitators can use as handouts or as models for displays to illustrate the ideas discussed. The facilitator using a particular training guide should first read the summary and the key concepts. He or she can then choose one or more of the practical techniques that seem most appropriate for the group s campaign, taking into account its objectives, the characteristics of the group, and the time available. The facilitator can choose the worksheets and resources that are most useful with the technique selected and photocopy them for use in preparing the session. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 4

6 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FACILITATING ADVOCACY EVENTS The facilitation of advocacy training sessions or of other group processes related to advocacy initiatives requires a variety of technical, pedagogical, political, and artistic skills and knowledge. Facilitators should have at least a primary school education, with good reading comprehension and writing skills. They also need a commitment to advocacy, and the willingness to continue to learn by experimenting with new techniques and methods. It can be said that facilitators are not born, but rather develop through practice and continuous effort to improve and grow. To be a facilitator also requires a strong commitment to the empowerment of other people. It is important to remember that a facilitator exercises considerable power and influence within the organizing and educational campaigns that s/he seeks to strengthen. For this reason, the facilitator should always be conscious that s/he has a responsibility to promote democratic participation and to seek to empower the group, community, or coalition with which s/he is working. Everything that a facilitator says or does or does not say or do has consequences for organizing and educational efforts. These consequences may not always be readily evident, but in the long run may either benefit or hurt a group. It is therefore important to ensure that decisions made as part of an organizing or educational effort reflect a collective understanding and are based on the experiences of the group. They should not be based solely on the criteria and experiences of the facilitator. Functions and Responsibilities of a Facilitator A facilitator should: Contribute to the building of common understandings based on the group s own organizing experiences. Contribute to the building of common understandings based on the group s educational experiences. Learn new things. Make the group more aware of its own internal dynamics. Stimulate democratic participation. Help the group to identify its problems and analyze their causes. Motivate the group to define and achieve its objectives. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 5

7 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES Help the group to work through internal conflicts in a constructive manner. Plan a logical and orderly process geared toward clear objectives. Prioritize and summarize important points. Go back to decisions made by the group and urge participants to follow up on them. Facilitate evaluation as an integral part of group processes. Qualities and Skills of a Facilitator A facilitator should be creative and dynamic, yet at the same time observant and sensitive to the needs and mood of the group. He or she should be patient and flexible, responsive to questions, and open to criticism. It is very important to be committed to gender inclusiveness and to respect cultural and ethnic differences. Finally, the facilitator should be consistent in his or her practices and statements. Practical Tips for Facilitators The following are general tips for the design and facilitation of advocacy training sessions or of meetings to plan or evaluate advocacy initiatives. Before the event 1. Define the objectives of the session with leaders or representatives of the organization (or organizations) that will participate in it. This is especially important when the organization has requested that the session take place. A facilitator should be clear about how this particular event fits within the organization s overall structure and programmatic activities. S/he should try to ensure that it is consistent with the organization s stated mission and objectives. 2. Ensure that the people with whom you are coordinating the event have the backing of the organization and its membership in order to avoid such problems as manipulation, poor attendance, or lack of credibility. 3. Arrange for the facilitation to be done by a team of facilitators. 4. Make sure that whatever technical equipment is needed for the event is available and functioning properly. 5. Gauge the participants true level of commitment to and involvement in the group s advocacy initiative. 6. Obtain as much information as possible about the organization: its history, current objectives, structure, activities, and internal dynamics. Information can be gathered through interviews, informal conversations, documents, and minutes. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 6

8 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES 7. Bear in mind the characteristics of the people who are going to participate: their ages, ethnicity, race, gender, knowledge and experience related to the issue, level of formal schooling, responsibilities within the organization, and level of political awareness. 8. Deal with logistical aspects of the event: the schedule, time allotted for lunch, where and how to hang up newsprint, the size of the space, the noise and temperature levels, the availability of break-out space for small group work, and so on. 9. Ensure that the specific objectives of the session contribute to the organization s overall objectives. 10. Ensure the logical sequencing of the content to be presented and select training techniques that will fulfill the specific learning objectives of the event. 11. Be familiar with all the materials that will be used during the session, ensuring their appropriateness for the particular group and issue under discussion. 12. Maintain good communication and coordination within the team of facilitators, agreeing in advance on each person s role and responsibilities. During the event 1. Make good use of the physical space available. 2. Allow participants the opportunity to express their hopes for the session so that they feel as though their opinions are taken into account from the beginning. Agree upon a schedule and some basic ground rules the need to be punctual, to listen to other people s opinions, to be brief, to avoid excessive repetition, to respect others, and so forth. In order words, clarify expectations and the rules of the game. 3. Create work groups of participants that will have specific responsibilities and tasks during the event to assist the team of facilitators. 4. Before presenting content, agree on how to handle the taking of minutes. It is important to be clear about the type of minutes that are needed, who will prepare them, with what inputs, and by what date. Explain that the minutes will serve as a report to be given to the team of facilitators. They should record the interests and needs expressed by the participants, analyze any difficulties that arose, and note which techniques were most helpful and appropriate and which achieved the best results. 5. Maintain fluid communication among members of the facilitation team, and model a participatory and democratic work style characterized by mutual respect. 6. Use a variety of presentation techniques (cards, newsprint, transparencies, the blackboard, etc.) to convey information and help participants follow a sequence of topics. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 7

9 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES 7. At the end of each step in the methodology, summarize it and highlight the main points of the discussion in order to clearly mark the end of one step and the beginning of another. 8. Make visual contact with all of the people in the group of participants. Do not direct your attention at only one person or one subgroup of people. When participants speak, they should speak to the entire group and not just to the facilitator. 9. Be creative and use appropriate new techniques to communicate with the participants. Know when to switch to a different technique (for example, after a long plenary, a serious discussion, a sad or emotional moment, or a break or meal). Varying the techniques helps keep participants energized and alert. Do not, however, go overboard and allow the techniques to distract from the content being presented or to curtail debate among the group participants on contentious issues. 10. Recognize and deal with the conflicts and disagreements that arise during the session. It is counterproductive to continue to present content when it is obvious that conflict is brewing or that feelings are not being expressed. 11. Address comments or statements made by any participant that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive, by questioning underlying behaviors or attitudes instead of attacking the person. The facilitator should make every effort to create a safe and congenial environment in which all participants feel respected. 12. Maintain a high level of motivation within the group throughout the session. It is important to create a positive and friendly environment by using techniques that allow the participants to get acquainted with one another. 13. Do not be afraid to make mistakes! Group facilitation is not an exact science, but rather a trial-and-error exercise. Popular educators often say that a person who never makes mistakes is someone who is not practicing. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 8

10 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 Section Two: Training Guides for General Workshops WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 9

11 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Training Guide: Introduction to Advocacy What is advocacy? Why engage in advocacy? What are the main things to keep in mind when we do advocacy? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 10

12 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Reflect on the concept of advocacy, particularly its desired outcomes and the factors that contribute to civil society s success with advocacy initiatives. 2. Analyze opportunities for and threats to advocacy, given the national and/or regional context. Key Concepts 1. What is advocacy? 2. Why engage in advocacy? 3. What factors contribute to the success of advocacy initiatives? 1. Constructing a definition of advocacy. 2. Advocacy in a word. 3. Brainstorming about advocacy. 4. Advocacy puzzles. 5. Analyzing sources of power for advocacy. 6. A poster of newspaper clippings. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. The generation of theoretical inputs related to the concept of advocacy, its desired outcomes, and the factors that contribute to its success. 2. The identification of opportunities for and threats to advocacy given the national and/or regional context. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 11

13 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY: KEY CONCEPTS 1. What Is Advocacy? Advocacy refers to organized efforts by citizens to influence the formulation and implementation of public policies and programs by persuading and pressuring state authorities, international financial institutions, and other powerful actors. Advocacy embraces various activities undertaken to gain access to and influence decision-makers on matters of importance to a particular group or to society in general. Advocacy as a tool for citizen participation Advocacy is a tool for real participation by citizens in decision-making by government and other powerful bodies. It is one of the ways together with elections, open forums, special commissions, and so on that different sectors of civil society can put forward their agendas and have an impact on public policies, participating in a democratic and systematic way in decision-making about matters that affect their lives. Citizen participation requires: Internal democracy Human and economic resources Consciousness Willingness to struggle Credibility Ability to bring together people across different sectors, socioeconomic classes, races/ethnicities, etc. Ability to mobilize large numbers of people Good leaders Relationships with national and international actors Alliances A popular vote. Advocacy as the exercise of power To the extent that the citizenry is able to influence decisions made by entities of the state, it is exercising its own power as civil society. Advocacy can be seen as the exercise of power by the citizenry in the face of the government s power. Effective WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 12

14 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY advocacy requires using different approaches to tap into various sources of power. This increases the probability that a government will be responsive to its citizens. Some of these approaches contribute to the accumulation and consolidation of social power, while others contribute to the strengthening of technical capacities. Advocacy requires: Capacity to do analysis Capacity to formulate alternative proposals Capacity for negotiation Research capacity Methodological knowledge about advocacy Information management. Advocacy as a cumulative process Advocacy consists of more than one strategy or activity. It entails the implementation of various strategies and activities over time, with creativity and persistence. Advocacy victories often are preceded by numerous failures. It is important not to give up, but to learn from our mistakes and to continually strengthen an organization in terms of its social power and technical capacity. Advocacy combines various complementary initiatives in order to achieve an objective. Through a series of small wins on specific issues that may appear not to be of great consequence, an organization or coalition gradually builds the social power and technical capacity needed to do advocacy on more complex issues. 2. Why Engage in Advocacy? There are many reasons to engage in advocacy. The most important from a civil society perspective are: (a) to solve specific problems through concrete changes in public policies and programs; (b) to strengthen and empower civil society; and (c) to promote and consolidate democracy. To solve specific problems The majority of civil society organizations that are committed to justice, democratization, and sustainable development aspire to change one or more aspects of the social, economic, political, and cultural realities in which they operate. Advocacy focuses on solving specific problems within this complex environment. Citizen advocates develop plans and implement strategies and activities aimed at achieving concrete solutions to these problems, most often through specific changes in public policies and programs. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 13

15 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY It is important to involve, from the beginning, the people who are affected by the problem that you wish to solve. This helps ensure that the group s or coalition s proposal reflects the priorities of this population and is geared toward achieving real change in their daily lives. To strengthen and empower civil society Advocacy, to the extent that it promotes social organization, alliance building, leadership formation, and networking at the national and international levels, stimulates the strengthening and empowerment of civil society. The planning and implementation of advocacy initiatives not only helps to solve immediate problems, but also, over time, contributes to strengthening the organizations or coalitions that engage in advocacy. This in turn prepares them for future efforts that can have an even greater impact on public policies. To promote and consolidate democracy Advocacy implies a permanent relationship between civil society and the state. It is an important gauge of a genuine democracy. Engaging in advocacy is one way to strengthen citizen participation in decision-making about public policies and programs and to promote a transparent political culture. As civil society becomes more successful in its advocacy efforts, power relationships between state institutions and the citizenry will be transformed and become more democratic. 3. What Factors Contribute to the Success of Advocacy Initiatives? A variety of external and internal factors help determine whether advocacy efforts will be successful. External factors The reality of every country is different. Therefore, the opportunities for and obstacles to the development of civil society and citizen participation through advocacy must be analyzed within a particular context. Nonetheless, it is possible to make generalizations about important external factors in the political environment of a country that contribute to citizens ability to influence public policies by engaging in advocacy. They include: Openness to democracy. Advocacy is most successful when governments are committed to the promotion and consolidation of democracy. In particular, advocacy requires that a government respect basic human rights, including the rights to life, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. Unless these rights are respected, there will be little political space for citizen participation. Social, economic, and cultural equity. Pervasive poverty and social, economic, and cultural exclusion weaken the capacity of marginalized sectors to organize themselves and to plan and implement initiatives designed to influence public policies. Poverty and exclusion tend to reinforce set attitudes on the part of both WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 14

16 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY state institutions ( The poor are a threat when they organize ) and traditionally marginalized sectors ( The state is the enemy ). These attitudes are obstacles to building the types of relationships between the state and its citizens that are essential if advocacy is to be effective. Decentralization. When engaging in advocacy it is important to have access to people with decision-making power and to other key actors. When a state is excessively centralized, citizens have limited access to state institutions, making it more difficult to seek solutions to their problems. Democratization of media access. The ability to influence and shape public opinion is crucial to the success of advocacy initiatives. Access to the media is particularly important. When control of the mass media is highly concentrated in a few hands, access for some sectors of society can be limited. This negatively impacts their ability to place issues on the public agenda and to influence decision-making about public policies in an effective way. Transparency. In order to influence the actions taken by the state, citizens must have access to public information. Without such access, groups and coalitions that want to influence public policies will not have sufficient information with which to analyze problems and develop proposals for viable solutions. A culture of accountability is required, in which public officials are responsive to citizens, especially with regard to compliance with specific aspects of a public policy. Internal factors Civil society organizations, especially those that come from traditionally marginalized sectors of society, also face the challenge of strengthening themselves internally and accumulating power vis-à-vis the state. The following factors come into play: Internal democracy. Democracy within organizations is a tool for empowerment. Internal democracy broadens the level of participation, especially among those groups within society that have traditionally been marginalized. This in turn enables the planning of advocacy initiatives that have a higher rate of success. To achieve internal democracy it is important to question traditional gender roles within organizations. Willingness to interact with the government. Even though advocacy involves the interplay of interests within a political context, which can sometimes be conflictive and polarizing, it always requires that civil society be willing to interact with the government in the most constructive and least conflictive way possible. Interaction with government is the means by which an organization or coalition achieves its advocacy objectives. Willingness to build and strengthen alliances. Advocacy efforts have the greatest impact when different sectors or groups within civil society work together. In this way, alliances are strengthened and the opposition is weakened. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 15

17 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Visualization of advocacy efforts as part of a long-term strategy for transformation. Even though advocacy is undertaken to achieve concrete results in the short or medium term, it should be framed within a context of broader objectives for social, economic, and political change to be accomplished over the long term. In other words, short- and medium-term results should be aligned with long-term objectives and should help solidify efforts to promote change. Clarity about the mission of the group or coalition. Advocacy initiatives should grow out of the previously defined mission of a group or coalition. Grounding advocacy work in the stated mission of the group or coalition helps ensure that advocacy is integrated into its overall program, and is not just a distraction or a marginal activity. The mission statement articulates the identity of the group or coalition, clarifying what it does, the problems it seeks to address, its philosophy of change, and the outcomes it hopes to achieve. Basic knowledge of the way state institutions function. When a group or coalition wants to influence public policy, it is extremely important that it be knowledgeable about the way the judicial system functions, about national and international laws that relate to the problem it hopes to solve, about how different decision-making spaces operate within the state, and about current public policies affecting the issue in question. Full understanding of the political context. The success of an advocacy initiative is affected by the group s ability to grasp the different dimensions of the political context in which advocacy will occur. Its ability to do objective analysis and to propose alternatives that are politically and technically viable depends on the depth of its understanding of the situation. Information management and research capacity. Information is power! Citizen advocates need accurate information in order to analyze problems, formulate policy alternatives, understand how decision-making spaces function, identify key actors, determine which strategies to use, and make arguments that support policy proposals. This implies a need to do research or to forge relationships with research institutions whose staff have expertise that can help make advocacy efforts more viable. Educational opportunities. In order for a group or coalition to become more knowledgeable about issues on which it hopes to have influence, and to increase its capacity to do research and analysis, it is important to provide educational opportunities for its leaders on an ongoing basis. Clear agreements between the individuals or organizations that are working together on an advocacy initiative. The people or organizations involved in a group or coalition that is engaged in advocacy should reach clear agreements about how they will work together. This will help to clarify the interests and expectations that are in play. It is common for conflicts and WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 16

18 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY misunderstandings to occur within and between organizations, but these problems can be minimized by reaching specific agreements about internal decision-making and about which individuals within a group or coalition can speak to the press or to government officials. It is important to work through these issues in a transparent fashion, because the agreements reached will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the joint effort. Availability of human and economic resources for the advocacy initiative. Advocacy requires resources. In addition to budgeting sufficient money for an advocacy initiative that is to be undertaken, organizations must also assign personnel with relevant training and expertise. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 17

19 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: CONSTRUCTING A DEFINITION OF ADVOCACY To draw out participants ideas about the concept of advocacy and use those ideas as the starting point for a discussion. Use This technique stimulates full participation and facilitates the identification of common understandings and essential elements that can be used to form a more developed concept of advocacy. It is especially useful in working with large groups (20 or more participants), although it can also be used with smaller groups. Process 1. Each participant is given a sheet of paper on which to write, as concisely as possible, his or her definition of advocacy. 2. Participants are paired off (preferably with people they do not know) in order to share their definitions. Each pair should combine their definitions to come up with a new definition of advocacy that incorporates both ideas. This new definition is written on a new sheet of paper. 3. Each pair joins with another pair, forming groups of four, and repeats the process to come up with one definition for each foursome. 4. In plenary, each group of four presents the definition of advocacy that it has been constructed. The facilitator will ask if other participants have questions to clarify the definitions that are presented, without getting into a discussion of their substance. 5. The facilitator asks several questions to encourage a discussion about all of the definitions: What are the common threads that run through all the definitions? What are the differences between the definitions? What are the main elements and key words associated with each definition? What is missing? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 18

20 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY 6. With input from the participants, the facilitator constructs one definition of advocacy that is based on the ideas presented by all of the participants. Time 1 hour and 10 minutes in total: 5 minutes to write individually 10 minutes in pairs 15 minutes in groups of four 20 minutes for presentations 20 minutes of discussion to construct a definition for the entire group. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: ADVOCACY IN A WORD To stimulate an exchange of ideas about the concept of advocacy. Use This technique helps participants focus on key aspects of the concept of advocacy. It is especially effective with large groups of more than 25 participants. Process 1. Each participant is given a card and instructed to write down one word that conveys what advocacy means to him or her. 2. All the cards are posted so that everyone can see them. 3. The facilitator reads all of the cards aloud. Participants discuss the cards and group together those that have similar ideas. At the end, the facilitator summarizes the main points that have been discussed by the group. Time 30 minutes in total: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 19

21 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY 5 minutes to write on the cards 25 minutes to talk about and group the cards. Variation Instead of the facilitator organizing the cards, the participants themselves group the cards as they are hanging them up on the wall. Each participant comes forward, reads his or her card aloud, and then hangs it beside others that have similar ideas, or apart from the others if it is distinctive idea. After everyone has come forward, the facilitator summarizes the ideas that have been grouped together, asking the group to help clarify and fine-tune the ideas under discussion. This variation allows for greater group participation in analyzing key aspects of the concept of advocacy, but it requires more time. Objective TECHNIQUE 3: BRAINSTORMING ABOUT ADVOCACY To share ideas about the desired outcomes of advocacy and the internal and external factors that enhance civil society s capacity to engage in advocacy. Use This technique helps groups strengthen their understanding of the meaning of advocacy. It should be used with groups that already have a minimal understanding of the concept on both a theoretical and a practical level. Process 1. Each participant is given three cards. Three sheets of newsprint are posted in the front of the group. One of the following questions is written on each sheet of newsprint, leaving an empty space under the question to hang up cards: Why do we engage in advocacy? What factors within civil society organizations can enhance their capacity to engage in advocacy? What factors in the political environment of a country can enhance the capacity of civil society organizations to engage in advocacy? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 20

22 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY 2. Each participant responds to the three questions, writing one response on each card. Participants are encouraged to write short phrases, preferably fewer than eight words, using letters that are large enough to be seen easily from a distance. 3. Participants hang their response cards on the three sheets of newsprint. 4. The facilitator reads aloud the cards under the first question, allowing participants to ask clarifying questions about the meaning of what others wrote on their cards (without discussing their substance). Then, the facilitator asks participants if they have more ideas to add to those already listed. The facilitator then groups together cards with similar ideas, summarizing the main points. The same process is repeated for the remaining two questions. 5. The facilitator makes a short presentation on the desired outcomes of advocacy and the minimum conditions that need to be present within civil society organizations and in the country environment. Then s/he asks the participants to comment on how what has been presented complements what they had written on their cards. Time 1 hour and 15 minutes in total: 5 minutes to write on cards 40 minutes for discussion, summary, and grouping of the cards 30 minutes for the presentation and final wrap-up. Objective TECHNIQUE 4: ADVOCACY PUZZLES To start a discussion about key aspects of advocacy, differentiating between the desired outcomes of advocacy, the sources of civil society s power, and the internal and external factors that enhance civil society s capacity to engage in advocacy. Use This technique allows a number of issues to be covered quickly and dynamically in a participatory fashion. Its purpose is similar to that of the previous technique, but it is less dependent on the group s capacity to generate ideas to be analyzed. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 21

23 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Preparation The facilitator decides on three symbols and makes three different colored puzzles in the shapes of those symbols. For example, there might be puzzles in the shape of: A door, to represent sources of civil society s power A key, to represent the factors that enhance civil society s capacity to engage in advocacy A padlock, to represent the desired outcomes of advocacy. Each puzzle is cut into pieces. Each piece has written on it an idea, expressed in very few words, about one aspect of the advocacy process. Process 1. Each participant is given one or two pieces of the puzzles, depending on the number of participants. 2. The facilitator asks the participants to work together to put the puzzles together, but does not explain how many puzzles there are or what they represent. 3. Once all of the puzzles are put together, the facilitator asks the participants to arrange them in a logical order. In plenary the participants discuss the meaning of each of the puzzles, reflecting on the common elements of all of the pieces in each. The participants give a name to each puzzle. 4. The facilitator guides a final discussion using the following questions: Why did we put the ideas in this order? Do you agree with the way the puzzles were used to represent different aspects of advocacy? Why or why not? What other elements should be included in each puzzle? Which elements should not be included? 5. The facilitator summarizes the ideas about advocacy that the group has discussed. Time 1 hour in total: 15 minutes to put the puzzles together 30 minutes for discussion WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 22

24 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY 15 minutes for the final wrap-up. Objective TECHNIQUE 5: ANALYZING SOURCES OF POWER FOR ADVOCACY To stimulate reflection and discussion about the main elements that contribute to civil society s power vis-à-vis that of the state. Process 1. The facilitator draws two circles on a sheet of newsprint, one that represents civil society and another that represents the government. The facilitator draws an arrow from the civil society circle toward the government circle, emphasizing that civil society is powerful and that it can exercise its power in order to influence the state. 2. The participants pair off, and each pair receives two cards. Working together, they answer the following two questions, writing each response on a card: What are the sources of civil society s power? What are the sources of the government s power? 3. In plenary, the pairs attach their cards to the newsprint, next to the civil society and government circles that correspond to their answers. 4. The facilitator summarizes the ideas of all of the pairs about the sources of power for civil society and for the government. Participants are encouraged to contribute more ideas to the discussion. 5. The group and the facilitator briefly discuss a specific situation where advocacy is taking place, suggesting specific actions that would take advantage of the sources of civil society s power. Time 45 minutes in total: 5 minutes to write on cards 15 minutes to study the different responses 25 minutes for discussion and wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 23

25 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Objective TECHNIQUE 6: A POSTER OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS To discuss the state of advocacy in the country, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of initiatives that have been undertaken and challenges for the future. Use This technique requires that participants have some understanding of the concept of advocacy and of social movements in their country, although a high level of formal education is not required. Process 1. The participants form four or five small groups. The facilitator gives each small group two sheets of newsprint, scissors, glue, markers, and several newspapers. 2. The small groups clip images from the newspapers that are examples of advocacy. The images are to be glued onto the first sheet of newsprint in a creative way. 3. On the second sheet of newsprint the small group should draw other images of advocacy that it thinks are important, but that were not found in the newspaper. If everyone in a small group feels that all of the key aspects of advocacy are reflected in the newspaper clippings, then the second sheet of newsprint can be left blank. 4. After the sheets of newsprint are hung up around the room, the facilitator asks several questions to help the participants analyze the posters. What do we see in the posters? What are some of the different ways that advocacy is done in our society? 5. After all of the presentations, the facilitator uses the following questions to guide a general discussion: What are some things that have been done well during advocacy efforts in our country? What are some things that have not been done well? Given our reality, what are some challenges that must be faced when engaging in advocacy? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 24

26 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY 6. The facilitator summarizes what has been said, and then gives a brief presentation about the strengths and weaknesses of previous advocacy initiatives in the country and challenges for the future. Time 1 hour and 40 minutes in total: 30 minutes for small group work 30 minutes for analysis of the posters 25 minutes for general discussion 15 minutes for the final presentation and wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 25

27 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 1 A series of activities Citizen initiatives WHAT IS ADVOCACY? To influence the formulation and implementation of public programs and policies To pressure and convince state authorities WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 26

28 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 2 A tool for citizen participation The exercise of power by civil society ADVOCACY A process that allows us to learn from experience WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 27

29 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 3 WHY ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY? To solve specific problems To strengthen and empower civil society To promote and consolidate democracy WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 28

30 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 4 Factors within CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS that increase the capacity to do advocacy Internal democracy Willingness to interact with the government Willingness to build and consolidate alliances Long-term vision for societal transformation A clear mission statement WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 29

31 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 5 Factors in the POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF A COUNTRY that contribute to the capacity to do advocacy Openness to democracy Social, economic, and cultural equity Decentralization Democratization of media access Transparency and accountability WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 30

32 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 6 Sources of civil society s power SOCIAL POWER Organization Unity Consciousness Popular vote Credibility Alliances Internal democracy Human and economic resources Willingness to struggle Understanding of the current situation Ability to mobilize large numbers of people Good leaders Ability to bring people together across different sectors, classes, races/ethnicities, etc. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 31

33 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 7 Sources of civil society s power TECHNICAL CAPACITY Capacity to formulate alternative proposals Research capacity Capacity for negotiation Capacity to do analysis Information management capacity Methodological knowledge about advocacy WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 32

34 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO ADVOCACY Introduction to Advocacy Resource 8 BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DOING ADVOCACY Knowledge of how state institutions work function Information management Educational opportunities Clear agreements within the group Understanding of the political context Availability of human and economic resources WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 33

35 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH Training Guide: A Step-by-Step Approach to Participatory Planning of Advocacy Initiatives What are the steps in planning an advocacy initiative? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 34

36 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. To facilitate critical reflection about the way that participants have done advocacy in the past, with a goal of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their efforts and drawing out lessons learned, both theoretical and methodological. 2. To reflect upon the logic of the participatory planning methodology for advocacy. Key Concepts 1. Logic of the participatory planning methodology for advocacy. 2. Steps of the participatory planning methodology for advocacy. 1. Analyzing past advocacy experiences. 2. Logic of the advocacy methodology. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Identification of strengths and weaknesses in the participants past efforts to do advocacy. 2. Articulation of lessons learned and/or the methodological steps for advocacy, based on the participants experiences. 3. Logical ordering of the eight steps of the participatory planning methodology for advocacy. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 35

37 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH: KEY CONCEPTS The participatory planning methodology for advocacy presented in this manual is derived from efforts to influence the public policies of the U.S. government and of international bodies over the last few decades. More recently, the methodology has been improved and enriched with feedback from its application in Central America, resulting in a methodology that is applicable in a wide range of social, political, and cultural contexts. To use the process presented in this manual, one should keep in mind the following as they relate to a specific advocacy campaign: Trajectory and mission of the group undertaking the advocacy campaign Nature of the problem that is to be solved Decision-making mechanisms within the government Specific person with decision-making power, and other influential actors Political context or environment Organizational capacity to undertake the campaign Social power behind the campaign. The methodology is structured around four questions and eight steps, outlined below. 1. Logic of the Participatory Planning Methodology for Advocacy The participatory planning process responds to four logical questions : What do we want? Who has the decision-making power? What do we need to do to convince the targeted decision-maker? How will we know if our strategy is working? The answers to these questions will help all participants in an advocacy campaign to understand why certain strategies are being used instead of others. These four basic questions form the basis for a more detailed set of questions, which in turn provide the foundation for the eight steps of the participatory planning methodology. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 36

38 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH 2. Steps of the Participatory Planning Methodology for Advocacy The eight steps of the methodology are summarized below. They are presented in more detail in the step-by-step training guides included in Section 3 of the manual. Step 1: Identify and analyze the problem What is the specific problem that we wish to solve? The group starts by examining the stated mission of the organization or coalition that is undertaking an advocacy initiative, and using it to prioritize a particular problem that it wants to solve. This problem is then analyzed in terms of its causes and consequences. The causes are prioritized both by their relative importance and by the feasibility of addressing them, leading to a decision to prioritize one cause. Step 2: Formulate the proposal What do we want to achieve? In the second step, the group or coalition considers possible solutions to the problem that was prioritized in Step 1. That is, it states what it hopes to achieve with its advocacy initiative, both in terms of the demands put forward to decision-makers and more immediate outcomes. The proposal should clearly express what is to be accomplished, to whom the proposal is directed, and the time limit for achieving it. The group should consider both the proposal s political and technical feasibility and the way in which it will contribute to solving the problem. The group should analyze the potential impact of the proposal in terms of political, cultural, and institutional changes. Step 3: Analyze the decision-making space How and when will a decision be made in response to the proposal, and by whom? The third step involves the in-depth analysis of the specific space, typically a unit within the government, that will make the decision about the proposal. Participants need to understand all the factors that can affect the decision-making process, both inside and outside of formal power structures. This means analyzing the legal framework, existing mechanisms of decision-making, time frames, and budgets, as well as identifying the real powers behind decisions that are made. Step 4: Analyze channels of influence Who are the actors that can influence the decision-making process? In this step the group identifies the key actors who can potentially influence, positively or negatively, decision-making about the proposal. These persons are analyzed with regard to their interests and their levels of influence, so that when it is time to design strategies there is greater clarity about who might be supportive (allies), who can be convinced (undecideds), and who might need to be neutralized (opponents). Together with the analysis of the decision-making space in Step 3, the analysis of channels of WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 37

39 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH influence provides greater insight into how the political environment may impact the advocacy initiative. Step 5: Do a SWOT analysis What are the strengths and weaknesses of the group that is engaging in advocacy? What are the opportunities and threats in the political environment in which the campaign is launched? In the fifth step the group analyzes strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) affecting the advocacy initiative. It critically examines its own strengths and weaknesses with respect to a particular initiative and decides what actions to take to overcome its weaknesses and increase the chances of success. At the same time, the group analyzes external factors that may help or hinder the initiative. Step 6: Design advocacy strategies How can we influence decision-making in order to get the proposal approved? Next, the group determines which strategies are best suited to effectively influence decision-making about the proposal. Factors to be considered include the nature of the decision-making space, the interests of decision-makers, the constellation of forces in the political environment, and the capacities of the group itself. The strategies chosen should be varied and creative. They may include lobbying, organizing, education or sensitivity-raising, and press work, as well as, when necessary, social mobilization. Step 7: Develop an activity plan What must be done to carry out the chosen strategies? In this step the group develops a plan of specific activities that will be used to implement the advocacy strategies defined in Step 6. This involves deciding upon specific actions that are feasible and deciding how to organize the work. The goals of each activity should be clearly articulated, and a table of activities is drawn up to indicate who has primary responsibility for each activity and the time frame for its execution. The idea is to put together a plan that is flexible, effective, and encourages everyone s participation. Step 8: Carry out continuous evaluation What has been achieved? What has not been achieved, and why? The final step involves making sure that the group sets aside time and space on an ongoing basis to evaluate its own process of planning and implementing an advocacy initiative. Aspects to be evaluated include the execution of strategies, the impact of the initiative in solving (or not solving) the specific problem, its contribution to the empowerment of the group and of civil society, and consequences for democracy. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 38

40 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: ANALYZING PAST ADVOCACY EXPERIENCES To analyze the past advocacy experiences of the participants in terms of achievements, weaknesses, and lessons learned, with the goal of: (a) enriching the concepts and the basic methodology, and (b) identifying the group s weak points so they can be addressed in future advocacy training sessions. Use This technique is especially helpful with groups that have previous advocacy experience. It is recommended that the technique be used with groups whose participants come from the same sector or organization and/or have similar experiences doing advocacy. Preparation 1. The facilitator prepares four symbols in four different colors of paper or cardboard: shoe = step or advocacy activity flower = strength stone = obstacle or difficulty star = achievement Enough symbols should be prepared so that each small group can have 8 shoes, 6 flowers, 6 stones, and 4 stars. 2. The facilitator draws a road or path on several sheets of newsprint. Process 1. Participants form a maximum of four small groups of 3 to 6 people each, organized by sector or based on similar past work or advocacy experiences. (For this exercise it is recommended that facilitator gather information in advance about the prior advocacy experiences of the participants in order to determine the composition of the small groups.) WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 39

41 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH 2. Each person in the small group briefly shares an experience that s/he has had as a participant in an advocacy initiative. 3. From the experiences that are shared, each small group selects one experience for more in-depth analysis. If possible, it should be one with which the majority of the small group s members can identify and about which there is considerable information. 4. Each small group analyzes its advocacy experience by answering the following questions: Shoes: What activities were carried out during the process of advocacy? Flowers: What were the most successful activities? Why? Stones: What difficulties were encountered along the way? Why? Which activities were failures? Why? Stars: What were the achievements? The group writes its answers to each question on the symbols corresponding to those questions. 5. The small groups present their conclusions in plenary, one by one, placing their symbols on the drawing of the road or path. Each small group first positions its activities (shoes), indicating the order in which they occurred. It then illustrates, chronologically, when particular successes (flowers) and difficulties/failures (stones) occurred. Finally, each small group places its achievements (stars) at the end of the path. After each presentation, the facilitator asks the other participants if they have questions about what happened. 6. After all the small groups have made presentations, the facilitator asks the following questions in plenary with the goal of sparking critical reflection on the participants advocacy experiences to date: What activities were used repeatedly when doing advocacy? What other important activities should have been included? In general, what is going well with our advocacy efforts? In general, what is causing us the most difficulty with our advocacy efforts? What have we accomplished with our advocacy initiatives? In terms of the methodology used for doing advocacy, what do we most need to focus on during this training session? 7. The facilitator does a final wrap-up of the session, pointing to and moving the symbols used in the small group presentations for emphasis. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 40

42 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH Time 2 hours and 45 minutes in total: 30 minutes to share individual experiences in small groups 60 minutes for small groups to analyze one advocacy experience 45 minutes for presentations by the small groups 30 minutes for discussion in plenary and final wrap-up. Variation A variation of this exercise involves socio-dramas. The first three steps of the process are the same, but instead of using the symbols, each small group prepares a sociodrama about one experience of engaging in advocacy. The socio-dramas should respond to the following questions: How did the advocacy effort unfold? What worked well? What did not work well? After each socio-drama, the facilitator asks the observers the following questions in order to highlight essential elements of the advocacy experience: What activities were carried out by the group doing advocacy? What was accomplished? What obstacles did they face? Those who presented the socio-drama can make brief comments or clarifications about what happened. After all of the small groups have presented their socio-dramas, the facilitator does a final wrap-up, summarizing what has been said about the different advocacy experiences. Time 1 hour and 50 minutes in total: 30 minutes for small group discussion and preparation of the socio-dramas 60 minutes for presentation of the socio-dramas and plenary discussion 20 minutes for final wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 41

43 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH Objective TECHNIQUE 2: LOGIC OF THE ADVOCACY METHODOLOGY To introduce the participatory planning methodology for advocacy in a dynamic and participatory way. Use This technique sparks debate and an initial reflection but does not require prior knowledge or experience with advocacy initiatives. Process 1. Before the session, the facilitator writes each of the four logical questions and each of the eight steps of the methodology (see Key Concepts, above) on a large sheet of newsprint, one question or step per sheet. The questions and steps are not numbered. The writing should be as large and as legible as possible. 2. The facilitator asks for four volunteers to come forward. Each volunteer is given one of the sheets of newsprint with one of the questions, but does not yet show it to the group. 3. One by one, the volunteers read their questions aloud and hold their sheets up for everyone to see. The facilitator asks the other participants to reflect on what each question means for those who do advocacy. 4. After all of the questions have been read and discussed, the facilitator asks the rest of the group to arrange the four questions in a logical order. The facilitator asks the group which question should go before or after the other, physically moving the volunteers from one position to another, until consensus is reached. 5. The four logical questions are hung on a wall for all to see and the volunteers are thanked. 6. The facilitator asks for eight more volunteers, preferably different people, and repeats the same process of discussion and ordering, this time with the eight steps of the methodology. Each step is then related to one of the four logical questions. 7. Finally, the facilitator summarizes the relationship between the four logical questions and the eight steps of the basic methodology. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 42

44 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 2 A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH Time 1 hour in total: 20 minutes to order and discuss the four questions 25 minutes to order and discuss the eight steps 15 minutes for final reflection. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 43

45 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 Section Three: Step-by-Step Training Guides WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 44

46 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 STEP 1: Identify and Analyze the Problem What is the specific problem that we wish to solve? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 45

47 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 STEP 1: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Understand the steps involved in identifying and analyzing a specific problem when planning an advocacy initiative. 2. Understand the steps involved in defining and prioritizing the causes of the problem. Key Concepts 1. Identification of the problem to be addressed. 2. Analysis of causes and consequences. 3. Prioritization of causes. 4. Detailed examination of the prioritized cause. 5. Lessons learned from experience. 1. Brainstorming to identify the problem. 2. Criteria triangle. 3. Analysis of causes and consequences. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Identification of a problem according to agreed criteria. 2. Identification of the causes and consequences of the problem. 3. Examination of the causes of the problem. 4. Decision made about which cause to prioritize. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 46

48 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 STEP 1: KEY CONCEPTS The first step of the basic methodology for planning advocacy campaigns is to identify and analyze the problem to be addressed. The causes of the problem are defined, and one of these causes is selected for remedial action. The cause should be one that can be solved through changes in public policies or programs at a local, national, or international level. At the same time, it is important to understand the way in which the resolution of a specific cause may contribute to solving the general problem. 1. Identification of the Problem to Be Addressed The group that is organizing an advocacy initiative must first decide what problem it wishes to solve. There are times when the problem is clear and easy to identify, especially in local settings. Nonetheless, it is very common for civil society groups to have long lists of problems that are negatively affecting one or more sectors of the population. In these cases the group must prioritize the problems, choosing one to work on first. It is best to work on one problem at a time because each problem requires separate analysis and a specific proposal about how to solve it. Each problem will require a different strategy for influence, depending upon the government entities and decisionmakers to be targeted. The problem selected should be solvable through changes in public policy. It should relate to the mission and vision of the group that is organizing the advocacy initiative. Three main criteria should be emphasized in prioritizing a problem to be addressed through advocacy. The problem should be: Politically and technically feasible to solve Deeply felt by a significant section of society Motivating for the group. 2. Analysis of Causes and Consequences Once the problem to be solved has been identified, organizers can proceed to the analysis of its causes and consequences, asking: Why did the problem arise? What are the main causes of the problem? What are its consequences? This exercise helps the group move from general demands that may be abstract and complex to more specific demands that are concrete and simple. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 47

49 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 It is important to differentiate between causes and consequences because it is causes, not consequences, that are targeted by advocacy efforts. A proposal to solve a problem will be effective only if it addresses the root causes of the problem. Proposals that have an impact only at the level of consequences will not solve the underlying problem. Finally, if the organizers of an advocacy campaign have clearly distinguished between causes and consequences, they will be able to identify those groups within society that are most affected by the problem. These are precisely the groups most likely to be interested in being part of an advocacy campaign. They should be incorporated into the advocacy effort from the beginning. 3. Prioritization of Causes With in-depth analysis it is common to find that a problem has several causes and that each of these causes must be addressed if the problem is to be solved. This requires organizers to set priorities, by asking: Which of the causes should be addressed first? Why? Is there one cause whose resolution would contribute more than the others to solving the problem? Why? Which cause is most readily resolved in the short term? Why? Is there one cause that is blocking the resolution of the others? How? At times the organizers of an advocacy initiative must choose between the cause whose resolution would be most critical for solving the problem and a different cause that is feasible to resolve in the short term. In such cases there may sometimes be an advantage in choosing the cause that is less critical but easier to address. Achieving an early win will help the group or coalition gain valuable hands-on experience and become stronger. It may also motivate more people to become involved in future advocacy initiatives sponsored by the group. 4. Detailed Examination of the Prioritized Cause Once a specific cause has been given priority, it must be examined in detail, separating it into its different contributing factors. The goal is to reach the point where alternative solutions become clear. 5. Lessons Learned from Experience The identification and analysis of the problem is one of the most difficult steps in the planning of advocacy campaigns. A number of lessons have been learned from experiences in the field: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 48

50 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Inadequate information is a common obstacle that impedes the analysis of problems. Organizers of advocacy initiatives may need to do additional research themselves or tap into the research expertise of universities or think tanks. Confusion between causes and consequences is a constant danger. It can lead to the proposal of solutions that do not address the roots of a problem. Incomplete examination of a problem can lead a group to concentrate its efforts on resolving less-important issues. In practice, many groups prioritize problems that are of little importance to the general population. This limits the possibility for mobilizing other groups in society to act and make it difficult to maintain momentum. Another frequent mistake is to analyze a problem without consulting those groups in society that are most affected by it. This can occur because of time pressure or lack of human or financial resources. In addition, sometimes leaders of advocacy efforts do not consider such participation to be necessary. Experience has shown that consultation with the people whose lives are most affected by a problem enriches the analysis of the problem and the preparation of proposals for solutions. It also lays the groundwork for future mobilization of the social forces needed to make the advocacy efforts successful. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 49

51 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 STEP 1: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objectives TECHNIQUE 1: BRAINSTORMING TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM To generate a list of possible problems to be addressed, keeping in mind the group s mission and vision. To make a collective decision about which problem the group wants to solve. Use This technique can be used to ensure that the chosen problem relates to the group s mission and vision, decreasing the possibility of an arbitrary list of problems. It encourages participation, helping the group to reach consensus on the problem to be addressed. Process 1. The facilitator explains that problems to be addressed through advocacy should be ones that can be resolved by changes in public policies and should relate closely to a group s vision and mission. 2. The participants present the group s previously established mission and vision statements, clarifying concepts or doubts. If no such statements exist, the facilitator asks the participants to explain the group s identity, what it does, and what it hopes to accomplish. The facilitator notes the inputs on newsprint. When participants come from several different organizations, the facilitator can either ask them to share each organization s mission statement or make up a hypothetical common mission statement for this exercise. 3. Each person is given a card. Based on the mission statement, each participant writes down on his or her card one possible problem that the group might address by undertaking an advocacy initiative. 4. One after the other, the participants come forward and hang their cards on the wall. 5. The facilitator reads all of the cards aloud and asks if anyone has clarifying questions. With assistance from the participants, the facilitator groups similar ideas and eliminates problems that have no public policy angle, reducing the list on the wall to a maximum of 10 problems. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 50

52 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 6. Before the training session, the facilitator has prepared a sheet of newsprint with a table based on Worksheet 1 ( Table for Selecting a Problem ). The table is presented to the group and the facilitator places the cards with the problems in the left-hand column, one per row. 7. The participants are asked to suggest criteria that the group can use to select one problem to work on together. Three main criteria should be emphasized. The problem should be: Deeply felt by a significant section of society Politically and technically feasible to solve Motivating for the group. 8. Each person is given three slips of paper, numbered from 1 to 3. Each participant comes forward to vote for the three problems that s/he considers to be the most appropriate for the group to address through an advocacy initiative, according to the criteria that have been discussed. A participant gives 3 points to the problem that s/he considers most important, 2 points to the problem that is second in importance, and 1 point to the problem that is least important. The slips of paper are placed in the middle column of the table on the rows corresponding to the problems chosen. 9. The facilitator adds up the points for each problem. The problem with the most points will be the one that the group deems most suitable for advocacy. Based on the input from this exercise, the group should make a decision about which problem it will work on. Time 1 hour and 15 minutes in total: 15 minutes to explain the general framework and present the mission 5 minutes for brainstorming 15 minutes to synthesize the ideas 20 minutes to decide on selection criteria 10 minutes for voting 10 minutes for final reflection. Variations Instead of slips of paper, the participants can use a marker to write the numbers in the middle column. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 51

53 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 The number of votes per person can be reduced to one or two, a modification that is especially useful when working with a large group. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: CRITERIA TRIANGLE To apply the three main selection criteria to several problems in order to compare them and prioritize the problem to be addressed. Use This technique is used after the group has discussed the three criteria used to select problems for advocacy, and has reduced the list of possible problems to three or four. It is not always necessary to use this technique. In some cases Technique 1 is sufficient to ensure that the chosen problem fulfills all three criteria and is clearly the best option for the group. Process 1. For each of the problems to be considered, the facilitator draws a figure with three arrows emanating outward from the center on a sheet of newsprint. Each of the arrows leads to one of the three key criteria (see Worksheet 2, Criteria Triangle ). 2. Ask the participants to place a dot on each arrow, showing the extent to which the problem fulfills that criterion according to the group s collective analysis. If the problem does not fulfill the criterion at all, the dot will be placed close to the center. If the problem fulfills the criterion to some extent, the dot will be placed further out on the line. If the problem completely fulfills the criterion, the dot will be placed at the tip of the arrow. 3. Next, for each problem, the facilitator connects the three dots, forming a triangle. The problem with the biggest triangle is the one that most closely meets the three criteria. 4. The results are discussed and a group decision is made about which problem to address. Time 1 hour in total: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 52

54 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 10 minutes to draw the three-arrow figure and explain the technique 35 minutes to place the dots on the arrows 15 minutes for the final discussion. Objectives TECHNIQUE 3: ANALYSIS OF CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES To examine in depth the causes and consequences of a problem that has been identified. To prioritize one cause and identify contributing factors for that cause. To prioritize one contributing factor for which a solution will be sought. Use Different groups can analyze different problems simultaneously. This technique is especially useful when the participants come from different institutions, regions, or sectors. Process 1. Affinity groups are formed (by organization, sector, region, or issue focus) to analyze a previously identified problem. All the affinity groups can analyze the same problem or each one can work on a different problem. 5. Each affinity group is given cards of three different colors, two sheets of newsprint, and copies of Worksheet 3 ( Analysis of Causes and Consequences ). Each affinity group should complete the following tasks: Write the problem in the center of a sheet of newsprint. Write the problem s main consequences on (up to eight) cards of the same color, and arrange them on the top half of the newsprint. Write the main causes of the problem on (up to eight) cards of another color and arrange them on the bottom half of the newsprint. Discuss the causes and select one priority cause to examine in depth. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 53

55 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Generate a list of the factors that contribute to the selected cause and write them, one by one, on (up to eight) cards of a third color. Place these factor cards next to the cause that has been selected. Select one of the contributing factors as a specific problem for which a possible solution will be sought. The prioritization of the main cause and of the main contributing factor should be based on a discussion about the three criteria for the selection of problems. 6. The affinity groups present their work in plenary, and participants ask clarifying questions. 7. The facilitator encourages reflection about the group work, inviting participants to make comments on the work of others. Attention should be focused on the application of the criteria to the examination of causes. 8. As a wrap up, the facilitator should discuss with the group the objectives of Step 1 and its importance in the planning of advocacy initiatives. Worksheet 4 ( Summary Analysis of the Selected Problem ) may be used to record the results. Time 1 hour and 50 minutes in total: 1 hour to work in groups 20 minutes for presentations in plenary 30 minutes for discussion in plenary. Variation When a small group (less than 15 people) is are working on the same issue, the same exercise can be done in plenary. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 54

56 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Worksheet 1 Table for Selecting a Problem Problem Votes Total points WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 55

57 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Worksheet 2 Criteria Triangle Motivating for the group Politically and technically feasible to solve Deeply felt by a significant section of society WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 56

58 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Worksheet 3 Analysis of Causes and Consequences Consequence Consequence Consequence Consequence Consequence Cause PROBLEM SELECTED Consequence Cause Prioritized cause Cause Contributing factor Contributing factor Contributing factor Contributing factor WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 57

59 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Worksheet 4 Summary Analysis of the Selected Problem Selected problem: Consequences of the problem Main causes of the problem Main cause that is prioritized 1. Contributing factors to the prioritized cause Contributing factor that is prioritized 1. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 58

60 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 1 STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE THE PROBLEM What is the problem that we want to solve? PURPOSE OF THE STEP To identify and analyze a problem in depth so that it can be solved through an advocacy proposal WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 59

61 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 2 Identification of the problem to be addressed Relate to the mission and vision of the group The problem to be addressed should: Be solvable through changes in public policy WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 60

62 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 3 Deeply felt by a significant section of society Criteria for prioritization of a problem Politically and technically feasible to solve Motivating for the group WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 61

63 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 4 PROBLEM SELECTED Consequences Causes Cause that is prioritized Contributing factor WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 62

64 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 5 Analysis of causes and consequences From the general to the specific Understand the nature of the problem Distinguish between causes and consequences Analyze consequences for different groups WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 63

65 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 6 PRIORITIZATION OF CAUSES Elements to keep in mind Which cause is most feasible to resolve in the short term? Does its resolution help to solve the larger problem? Must one cause be resolved before the others? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 64

66 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 1 Step 1 Resource 7 LESSONS LEARNED Move beyond generalities. Do not confuse causes and consequences. Analyze specific aspects of the problem. Problems that are deeply felt tend to generate social power. Get advice from others to pinpoint the problem. Obtain the information needed to formulate strategies. Involve those who are affected by the problem. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 65

67 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 STEP 2: Formulate the Proposal What do we want to accomplish in terms of public programs and policies? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 66

68 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 STEP 2: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Understand the importance of formulating a precise and detailed proposal that states exactly what the advocacy initiative seeks to accomplish. 2. Know the steps in formulating an advocacy proposal and the elements it should contain. 3. Apply the criteria for the formulation of advocacy proposals to a specific situation. 1. Identification of possible solutions. 2. Prioritization of one solution. 3. Formulation of the advocacy proposal. 4. Political, institutional, and cultural changes. 5. Importance of secondary goals. 6. Lessons learned from experience. Key Concepts 1. Generating possible solutions. 2. Formulating an initial proposal. 3. Brainstorming about criteria. 4. Improving the initial proposal: Round Improving the initial proposal: Round Defining secondary goals for the initiative. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Formulation of a precise and viable proposal using agreed criteria. 2. Visualization of the potential impact of the proposal, keeping in mind the three advocacy criteria, the internal goals, and necessary political, institutional, and cultural changes. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 67

69 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 STEP 2: KEY CONCEPTS In Step 1 of the basic methodology, the group identified and analyzed the problem they wish to solve, and prioritized one cause to be addressed through advocacy. The objective of Step 2 is to formulate a precise and detailed proposal that indicates exactly what is to be accomplished, who has the decision-making power on this matter, and the time frame for the advocacy effort. The formulation of a good proposal is of great importance for all advocacy efforts. It should be so precise, clear, and detailed that there is no room for ambiguity; everyone should understand it in the same way. Without such a proposal, it will be difficult to communicate what the group hopes to accomplish. A good proposal and social power (that is, the capacity of a strong group) are the two most important elements of any advocacy initiative. 1. Identification of Possible Solutions At the beginning of Step 2, organizers identify possible solutions to the cause of the problem that has been prioritized. In this process it is helpful, and sometimes necessary, to consult with experts on the issue and with other civil society organizations that have similar interests. 2. Prioritization of One Solution Once several possible solutions to the prioritized cause have been identified, it is necessary to select one that will serve as the basis for the formulation of an advocacy proposal. Here, once again, it is important to consult with: The people affected by the problem Members and staff of the organization undertaking advocacy Other civil society organizations with experience on the issue Technicians and political experts who are knowledgeable about the issue. 3. Formulation of the Advocacy Proposal In order to turn a possible solution into an advocacy proposal, one must ask: What exactly do we hope to accomplish (that is, what is the solution to the problem)? How do we hope to accomplish it (through which mechanism, involving which actors)? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 68

70 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 What is the space where the decision about the proposal will be made? Which entity has decision-making power about the proposal? By what date do we want to have accomplished the proposal? The proposal should be worded in such a way that it will be possible to measure with certainty whether or not it was accomplished at the end of the campaign. The clearer and more specific the proposal, the greater the chance that the advocacy initiative will succeed. In addition to being precise and clear, the proposal should: Generate favorable public opinion Contribute to solving the problem Be achievable in the short to medium term (3 to 18 months) Be directed toward identified persons who will make the decision about the proposal Be politically feasible Be technically feasible (e.g., the state has the capacity to execute it, it is legal, it would not cause other bigger problems) Be economically feasible (e.g., state resources for its implementation exist) Have a time frame that is realistic, given the standard procedures used within the space where the decision will be made Be motivating and unifying for the organization or coalition Contribute to forming and strengthening alliances Stimulate the mobilization of people who are affected by the problem. If the proposal does not fulfill these criteria sufficiently, it may be necessary to consider changing the way it is formulated. The importance of having objective data in hand that help to validate and support the proposal must not be underestimated. Also, organizers must understand the political, economic, and social dynamics of the environment in which they hope to carry out an advocacy proposal. Some moments are more propitious than others for launching an advocacy campaign on a specific issue. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 69

71 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 4. Political, Institutional, and Cultural Changes Advocacy is directed above all to achieving changes in public policies and programs. In order to sustain these changes, however, it is often necessary to seek changes in state institutions and in the general political and social culture. Such changes may affect how policies are executed, for example by increasing the level of human, financial, and material resources dedicated to solving a problem. They affect how public agencies function and how they relate to civil society, for example by institutionalizing mechanisms for citizen participation, or strengthening and democratizing existing mechanisms. Change may also be needed in less quantifiable aspects such as the knowledge and attitudes of government officials, because these influence the culture within an institution. This sometimes implies the need for actions to educate bureaucrats and raise their sensitivity about a particular issue. New public policies alone will not bring about lasting solutions to complex and entrenched problems unless there are accompanying changes in behavior, attitude, traditions, and values. 5. Importance of Secondary Goals In addition to formulating the advocacy proposal, it is useful to spell out secondary goals that can be accomplished in the course of carrying out an advocacy initiative. Obviously, approval of the proposal is the most important goal, but it may be possible to accomplish other things too, both internally and externally, regardless of what happens with the proposal. Some secondary goals might include: Generating public debate about the issue Forging new alliances Meeting face-to-face with state actors Increasing the sensitivity of government officials with regard to the issue Learning about how a particular state entity functions Achieving the active participation of women in the planning process for an advocacy initiative. In many cases it is helpful to set specific objectives for these secondary goals to articulate what the group hopes to accomplish. These secondary objectives can be used as a tool for evaluating the success of the advocacy effort on an ongoing basis. Many groups find it useful to define medium- and long-term goals in order to ensure that each advocacy initiative undertaken falls within an overarching strategic plan. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 70

72 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 6. Lessons Learned from Experience Experience has shown that advocacy proposals developed by civil society organizations tend to suffer from common weaknesses that will need to be overcome in order to improve their effectiveness. Proposals formulated as long lists of demands will generally be ignored by the person with decision-making power (the targeted decision-maker ) and therefore work against the success of the proposal in the short term. It is better to focus on a single achievable demand. Small victories are better than nothing, especially since they help to consolidate a group or coalition and can lay the groundwork for more important accomplishments in the future. General and vague proposals are ambiguous and open to interpretation. They make it easy for decision-makers to evade the issue and/or instigate divisions within the group or coalition that is undertaking the advocacy initiative. Proposals that are directed at everyone and no one do not have an impact. The proposal should always clearly identify the particular entity or person with the power to make a decision about the issue at hand. Failure to consult with experts, allies, and the population affected by the problem before going public with an advocacy proposal can limit its political impact and give the government an excuse to ignore it. The proposal should represent the interests of a significant section of society. Proposals that do not address the specific problem that has been identified breed frustration and discouragement within the group. Consultation helps to avoid this problem. Proposals to put in place new mechanisms for citizen participation are not enough. They need to be followed up by significant attitudinal and behavioral changes on the part of the government officials and state institutions charged with implementing them, otherwise the desired outcome will not be achieved. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 71

73 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 STEP 2: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objectives TECHNIQUE 1: GENERATING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS To identify several possible solutions for the prioritized cause of a specific problem. To select one of the possible solutions to use as the basis for an advocacy proposal. Use This technique allows the group to brainstorm possible solutions and then analyze them more carefully. There may be an informal agreement or consensus within the group from the beginning about which solution is most appropriate for an advocacy proposal. Nonetheless, the facilitator should insist that the group analyze several possible solutions in order to avoid possibly making a premature decision without examining less obvious factors. Process 1. In plenary, the group should go back to the problem and the one particular cause of that problem that was identified as a priority in Step 1. A specific advocacy initiative will be developed to address this cause. The facilitator writes the cause in a visible place on a sheet of newsprint and then asks the group: What solution shall we propose in order to solve this problem? 3. The facilitator writes down ideas for possible solutions on a sheet of newsprint. After a maximum of 15 possible solutions have been suggested, the group is asked to analyze the list and to combine similar ideas. Proposals that the group deems unrealistic should be eliminated. The result of this process should be a shorter list. 4. Three small groups are formed to analyze the solutions on this list. Each group is given a copy of Worksheet 1 ( Table for Analysis of Possible Solutions ). The facilitator distributes the ideas for possible solutions among the small groups, giving a maximum of five ideas to each group. 5. Each small group analyzes several possible solutions and picks the one it thinks is most appropriate. 6. The small groups present their conclusions in plenary. The group now has three possible solutions to consider. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 72

74 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 7. On a sheet of newsprint, the facilitator presents Worksheet 2 ( Table for Comparison of Possible Solutions ). The worksheet can also be made into handouts and given to the participants. The facilitator writes the three possible solutions to the problem in the second row of the table, under the headings for possible solutions 1 through The participants analyze the three possible solutions in relation to each of the 10 criteria on the matrix, writing the number 0, 1, or 2 by each one to indicate the extent to which it fulfills the criterion. 0 = does not fulfill the criterion 1 = somewhat fulfills the criterion 2 = completely fulfills the criterion Note: In groups of more than 15 participants it is recommended that people pair off and that each pair vote only once. 9. The facilitator adds up the points for each of the three possible solutions. The solution with the most points will be the one that the group has determined to be the most appropriate for the advocacy proposal. 10. The facilitator asks the group to comment on this particular solution and makes note of any concerns that are raised. 11. The facilitator summarizes the main points and wraps up the discussion. Time 1 hour and 35 minutes in total: 10 minutes to list possible solutions 30 minutes for group work 20 minutes for presentations 15 minutes for voting 20 minutes for the final discussion. Variation If the group is small, the initial analysis of possible solutions can be done in plenary, reproducing the table on a sheet of newsprint. Analysis should be limited to a maximum of five possible solutions. TECHNIQUE 2: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 73

75 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Objective FORMULATING AN INITIAL PROPOSAL To formulate an initial advocacy proposal, keeping in mind the essential components of a proposal. Use Techniques 1 and 2 should be used in sequence to ensure that the proposal that is formulated will really help to solve the identified problem. Process 1. Three or four small groups form, with 5 to 7 persons each. Using the solution that has been prioritized by the participants as the starting point (in Technique 1), each small group answers the following questions: What do we want to accomplish? How are we going to accomplish this? Using what mechanisms? What person or state institution has decision-making power on this matter? What is the space where the decision will be made? In what time frame do we want to accomplish this? 2. Each small group formulates as concise a proposal as possible (no more than one paragraph), using the answers to the questions as inputs. 3. The small groups present their initial proposals in plenary. 4. The facilitator stimulates discussion about the various proposals. Note: If the intention is that the whole group work on the same problem and use the same advocacy proposal during the rest of the training, or if the group will actually undertake an advocacy initiative, it will be necessary to combine all of the proposals drafted by the small groups into one consensus proposal. Time 1 hour in total: 30 minutes in groups 20 minutes for presentations 10 minutes for reflection and final wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 74

76 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Variation If the group is small (less than 15) and plans to work together on one advocacy proposal, the questions can be answered in plenary while the team of facilitators takes notes and helps the participants reach consensus on the wording of a proposal. Objectives TECHNIQUE 3: BRAINSTORMING ABOUT CRITERIA To reflect upon and discuss the main criteria that should be used to evaluate the viability of an advocacy proposal. To apply these criteria to the initial proposal formulated by the group. Use This is a fast-moving, participatory technique that helps ensure that the participants themselves have a voice in shaping the criteria to be applied to advocacy proposals. Process 1. Each participant is given a card. Each participant writes on the card one criterion that s/he thinks is important to keep in mind when formulating an advocacy proposal (in addition to the questions that were answered during Technique 2). 5. Each person comes to the front, reads aloud what s/he has written, and displays the card to the group. After all the cards are on display, the participants group those with similar ideas and separate those which are different. 6. The facilitator, with the support of the group, summarizes the criterion that has been generated for each grouping of cards. Later, the facilitator presents the criteria from this manual as a complement to the group s ideas. Time 30 minutes in total: 15 minutes to brainstorm and present ideas 15 minutes for the facilitator to present other criteria. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 75

77 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Variation Before the session, the facilitator prepares a jigsaw puzzle with one criterion on each piece. Each participant, or each pair of participants, is given one piece of the puzzle and the group is asked to put the puzzle together. Each participant (or pair) reads their criterion aloud, comments on it, and fits it together with other pieces of the puzzle for all to see. At the end, the facilitator can ask if there are other criteria that should be added that did not appear on the puzzle pieces, and lead a general discussion of the criteria. Objectives TECHNIQUE 4: IMPROVING THE INITIAL PROPOSAL: ROUND 1 To evaluate the initial proposal, applying the criteria that were previously identified in order to gauge its effectiveness, feasibility, and likely contribution to the strengthening of the group or coalition that is engaging in advocacy. To generate inputs that can be used to improve the initial proposal. To ensure that the proposal is appropriate in light of the social, political, and economic context in which the advocacy initiative will take place. Process 1. Participants re-form the same small groups that worked together previously to formulate the initial proposals. If the initial proposal was formulated in plenary, then new small groups should be formed. 2. Each small group fills out Worksheet 3 ( Table for Evaluating an Initial Proposal ), reviewing the initial proposal criterion by criterion. For each criterion, the small group identifies the positive aspects and the weaknesses of the proposal, noting these in the appropriate columns of the row. In the last column on the right, they note suggestions on how to improve the proposal so it better fulfills the given criterion. 3. In plenary, each small group makes recommendations about how to improve the wording of the initial proposal, explaining why it believes that the changes are needed. 4. After all the small groups have presented their recommendations, the facilitator leads a general discussion and does a final wrap-up. Time 1 hour and 15 minutes in total: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 76

78 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 45 minutes in groups 20 minutes for presentations 10 minutes of discussion and wrap-up. Variation 1 When all of the small groups are working on the same proposal, the criteria can be distributed among them. Later, after the presentations, the facilitator works with all of the participants in plenary to draft one proposal that incorporates the suggestions of all of the small groups. Time 45 minutes in total: 20 minutes in small groups 10 minutes for the presentations 15 minutes to draft a new proposal in plenary. Variation 2 The facilitator prepares a jigsaw puzzle with a different criterion for an advocacy proposal on each piece of the puzzle. The puzzle pieces are distributed among the participants. Each participant reads his or her criterion aloud and then tries to apply it to the initial proposal. The facilitator asks: Does the proposal fulfill this criterion? If not, what changes might we make in the wording of the proposal to improve it? Time 40 minutes. Objectives TECHNIQUE 5: IMPROVING THE INITIAL PROPOSAL: ROUND 2 To reflect on the potential impact of an advocacy initiative in the context in which it will be carried out. To consider the political, institutional, and cultural changes that will be needed, even if the advocacy proposal is approved, in order to solve the problem. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 77

79 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 To further strengthen the proposal in light of these considerations. Use This technique is helpful when a group is planning a real advocacy initiative, not just engaging in a hypothetical exercise. Process 1. The facilitator asks the group: What types of changes should result from an advocacy initiative? 2. The facilitator encourages discussion and writes the responses on a sheet of newsprint. 3. The facilitator presents three handouts: Worksheet 4 ( Dimensions of Change in Advocacy ), Worksheet 5 ( Framework for Analysis of Alternative Solutions through Legal or Political Reforms ), and Worksheet 6 ( Reflections about Advocacy Proposals ). 4. The facilitator leads a group discussion around the following questions: In which of the three dimensions of change should we focus our proposal so that it contributes to solving the problem? How can we make our proposal more effective? 5. The facilitator recaps the main points and, if necessary, changes the wording of the proposal one more time. Time 45 minutes in total: 10 minutes for the initial discussion 15 minutes for the presentation 20 minutes for the final discussion. TECHNIQUE 6: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 78

80 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 DEFINING SECONDARY GOALS FOR THE INITIATIVE Objective To define the secondary goals of the advocacy initiative, to supplement the primary goal of getting the proposal approved. These include both internal goals (for the group or coalition that is engaging in advocacy) and external goals (outside the group or coalition). Use This technique is most appropriate in cases where a group or coalition is really planning an advocacy initiative. Process 1. The facilitator gives each participant two cards of different colors. 2. The facilitator asks: In addition to approval of the advocacy proposal, what else do we want to have accomplished at the end of this process? 3. The facilitator explains that one color will represent goals that are external and the other will represent goals that are internal to the group or coalition. Participants are asked to write one suggested goal on each card. 4. Each person reads his or her card to the group and displays it for all to see, grouping it with other cards that show similar ideas. 5. The facilitator summarizes the ideas that have been presented and, with the support of the group, determines secondary goals for the advocacy process. 6. Optional: The group can also define indicators for the secondary goals, that is, elements that will be used to measure the results to determine whether the goals have been achieved. The facilitator forms three or four small groups and gives each the task of generating ideas for indicators for the established goals. The group discusses the ideas and refines the indicators in plenary. Time 1 hour and 25 minutes in total: 10 minutes to write down goals 15 minutes for the presentation 10 minutes to synthesize the ideas WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 79

81 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 20 minutes in groups to write indicators 30 minutes in plenary for the presentation and a discussion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 80

82 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 1 Table for Analysis of Possible Solutions Identified problem: Possible solution Would it solve the problem? Is it feasible to achieve? Would our group become stronger? Who would benefit from this solution? Doubts: What don t we know? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 81

83 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 2 Table for Comparison of Possible Solutions Possible solution #1 Possible solution #2 Possible solution #3 Criterion Would generate favorable public opinion Data exist to show that it would help to solve the problem Can be achieved in the short or medium term Decision-makers for the proposal are identifiable Politically feasible Technically feasible Economically feasible Motivating and unifying for the group Would contribute to forming and strengthening alliances and coalitions Would stimulate the mobilization of people affected by the problem Total points WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 82

84 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 3 Table for Evaluating an Initial Proposal Initial proposal: Criterion In what way does the proposal fulfill the criterion? In what way does the proposal fail to fulfill the criterion? What can be done to improve the proposal? Will it generate favorable public opinion? Do data exist to show that its approval would help to solve the problem? Can it be achieved in the short or medium term? Can a person or persons be identified who will make decisions about the proposal? Is it politically feasible? Is it technically feasible? Is it economically feasible? Is the time frame realistic given the process used to make decisions? Is it motivating and unifying for our group? Does it contribute to forming and strengthening alliances and coalitions? Does it stimulate the mobilization of people affected by the problem? Other criteria? Improved proposal: Note: Keep in mind that the criteria serve as a general guide to use in refining a proposal. One does not necessarily need to fill out the entire table if a criterion does not seem pertinent, or if the proposal cannot be improved with respect to every criterion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 83

85 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 4 Dimensions of Change in Advocacy STRUCTURAL CHANGES Democratization of decision-making spaces Ways of governing Capacity for execution POLITICAL CHANGES Public policies Creation and reform of laws Budgets Programs CULTURAL CHANGES Values Attitudes Behaviors Customs Empowerment processes Source: Valerie Miller WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 84

86 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 5 Framework for Analysis of Alternative Solutions through Legal or Political Reforms What should be the focus of our solution? IN ITS CONTENT Discriminatory or inappropriate elements Inappropriate or insufficient policies IN ITS APPLICATION Laws and policies are not implemented as they were intended Limited capacity or political will on the part of state institutions IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT Lack of knowledge about rights, laws, and policies Conflict between cultural values and the proposal s content Little hope of compliance with the legal aspects Source: Margaret Schuler, ed., Empowerment and the Law: Strategies of Third World Women (Washington, DC: OEF International, 1986). WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 85

87 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Worksheet 6 Reflections about Advocacy Proposals If the state has not adopted an appropriate policy to solve the problem... Proposals to make or reform public policies General content Coverage Target population If existing policies are not being implemented... Proposals for changes in process Internal functioning Technical and financial capacity If people do not know their rights and how to exercise them... Proposals to create initiatives to educate and raise sensitivity about issues WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 86

88 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 1 How to make advocacy proposals more precise? MOVE FROM DEMANDS THAT ARE: General Abstract Confusing and subjective Directed toward everyone and no one A lengthy list So broad that they will never be achieved TO PROPOSALS THAT ARE: Concrete Specific and precise Clear and objective Realistic Targeted directly at the person or persons with decision-making power Clear about what we want Achievable Helpful in evaluating the impact of our advocacy efforts WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 87

89 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 2 STEP 2 FORMULATE THE PROPOSAL What do we want to accomplish? PURPOSE OF THE STEP Formulate a detailed proposal that states exactly what is to be accomplished, in what time frame, and who the decision-makers are. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 88

90 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Reasonable The solution should be: Sustainable Feasible Possible PRIORITIZATION OF ONE SOLUTION WHAT THE PROPOSAL SHOULD CONTAIN What do we hope to accomplish? How do we hope to accomplish it? Who are the decision-makers with regard to the proposal? By when? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 89

91 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 4 CRITERIA FOR A PROPOSAL Effectiveness: Generates favorable public opinion Its approval will contribute to solving the problem Feasibility: Achievable in the short or medium term Decision-makers are identifiable Politically feasible Technically feasible Contributes to strengthening the group: Economically feasible Time frame is realistic Motivates the members Creates a sense of unity Helps to form or strengthen alliances Stimulates the mobilization of people affected by the problem Also keep in mind: The importance of information Political realities at that particular moment WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 90

92 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 5 THE PROPOSALS SHOULD RESULT IN: Political changes Institutional changes Cultural changes WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 91

93 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 6 SETTING SECONDARY GOALS FOR AN ADVOCACY PROPOSAL Internal goals External goals WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 92

94 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 2 Step 2 Resource 7 LESSONS LEARNED Focus on one demand. Long lists of demands are not advocacy proposals. Make proposals specific. General proposals are ambiguous, can be interpreted in different ways, and do not solve the problem. Ensure that there are mechanisms for participation. Direct the proposal at the body or person with decision-making power. Consult others about the proposal before launching it. Be certain that the proposal responds to the problem. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 93

95 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 STEP 3: Analyze the Decision-Making Space How and when will decisions be made about the proposal? Who will make them? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 94

96 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 STEP 3: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Establish the importance of analyzing the decision-making space for each advocacy proposal. 2. Understand how to analyze a decision-making space. 3. Apply the process of analysis to one particular decision-making space. 4. Identify possible gaps in information about the decision-making space. Key Concepts 1. Why analyze the decision-making space? 2. Who will make the decision about the proposal? 3. What process will be used to make the decision? 4. When will the decision be made? 5. Lessons learned from experience. 1. Brainstorming with cards. 2. Analysis in small groups. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Identification of the decision-maker(s). 2. Analysis of the decision-making process and formulation of a calendar of activities. 3. Identification of possible information gaps. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 95

97 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 STEP 3: KEY CONCEPTS Once a group has formulated its advocacy proposal, articulating in a precise, clear, and detailed way what it wants to accomplish in order to solve the problem that it has identified, the next step is to analyze the space in which a decision about the proposal will be made. The purpose of this step is to identify who has decision-making power with regard to the proposal, what the decision-making process will be, and the specific time frame within which the decision will be made. 1. Why Analyze the Decision-Making Space? In order to design effective strategies for getting an advocacy proposal approved, the group promoting the campaign must know how the relevant decision-making space is organized and where it is located within the government structure. Political advocacy tries to mobilize the political power that is exercised by a particular unit of government in order to get a particular proposal approved. Advocates therefore need to understand the unit or space within government that has the power to approve the proposal. For example, if an educational policy is the target of advocacy, the group should analyze those education-related units within the executive (ministries, secretariats, and other bodies) that will consider the proposal. A similar analysis should be done when an advocacy proposal relates to the legislative or judicial branch or to local government bodies. If in doubt, the group should seek the advice of knowledgeable people who can provide reliable information about the decision-making space. 2. Who Will Make the Decision about the Proposal? Within every government body, one person in some cases, several people will have the power to decide about the policies and programs that are the focus of the advocacy proposal. This person is called the decision-maker. At times it may be difficult to discern who the decision-maker is because formal authority and real power are in the hands of different people. In such cases, both people can be targeted as decision-makers, or the person with formal authority can be identified as the decision-maker and the other person as a key actor who exercises the real power. It is important to identify people by first and last names and not just by the positions that they occupy within the government, since, in practice, decisions are made by individual men and women. 3. What Process Will Be Used to Make the Decision? In addition to precisely identifying the decision-maker, it is important to identify the formal and informal processes by which decisions are made. The formal decisionmaking process is enshrined in national law and institutional statutes. It is helpful to be WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 96

98 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 knowledgeable about technicalities that allow modifications in such laws and statutes. The informal process occurs alongside the formal process, and in some cases can determine the decision that is reached. Advocacy efforts need to take both processes into account. Understanding the process by which a decision will be made, and identifying every step in that process, permits a group to try to influence the process every step of the way. In addition, it is important to identify every person who will be involved in the decisionmaking process in order to determine the opportune moment to try to influence each of them. In some state institutions, the formal decision-making processes are very complex. For example, a proposal may seek approval of a new law by the legislative branch of a country that is responsible for approving, modifying, or repealing laws. Advocates will need to know the following: How can officials of state institutions use their influence to try to approve, modify, or repeal a law? What is the process used to approve a new law? How does the legislature organize itself into commissions or committees to work on particular issues? How is the legislative agenda set? How are votes taken? What are the relationships and the correlation of forces within and between different groups in the legislature? 4. When Will the Decision Be Made? The third aspect to consider when analyzing the decision-making space is the time period in which the decision will be made. Is there a deadline? This question is particularly important when advocacy proposals have budgetary implications because the national budget of a country often must be approved in a specific period. Thus, if a proposal deals with matters of law, advocates must understand not only the legislative process but also the overall budgetary process. 5. Lessons Learned from Experience Analysis of the decision-making space requires objective, up-to-date, and accurate information. Groups that intend to engage in advocacy should ensure that they have the necessary information in hand. Information gathering includes seeking the expert advice of people and institutions that are knowledgeable about the decision-making space, and WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 97

99 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 monitoring the media for relevant reports. A group organizing an advocacy campaign should strive to constantly improve its own research capacity. Effective advocacy requires knowledge about different state institutions and how they function. It is important to learn, in as much detail as possible, about the: Structure and functioning of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and other state institutions at the national level Structure and functioning of the state at the local level, including municipal institutions and development councils Process for formulating, approving, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating public policies Process for putting together the budget Entity to which the budget will be presented. The more the group knows about the decision-maker, the decision-making process, and the time frame, the better able it will be to exert influence throughout the process. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 98

100 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 STEP 3: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: BRAINSTORMING WITH CARDS To generate a discussion about the importance of analyzing the decision-making space for an advocacy proposal, highlighting important aspects. Use This technique encourages participation because it quickly elicits the ideas of individual participants. It requires an effort on the facilitator s part to stimulate the discussion and to organize and synthesize many different ideas so that none is left dangling. Process 1. Each participant is given four cards, of four different colors. The facilitator writes the following four questions horizontally across the top of a large blackboard, noting the color of the corresponding answer cards. There should be sufficient space under each question to hang several cards. What is an example of a decision-making space? Why do we analyze the decision-making space? What should be the focus of this analysis? How can we gather more information about a space? 2. Each participant writes an answer to each of the four questions on the cards. (In groups of more than 15 participants it is recommended that each person be given only two cards and answer only two of the questions.) 3. Beginning with the first question, participants come forward and hang their cards under the question. The facilitator reads the answers aloud and asks if there are questions to clarify what has been written. With the group s help, the facilitator summarizes all of the inputs, grouping similar ideas together and inviting comments from the group. The same process is repeated with the remaining questions. 4. Building on the group s ideas, the facilitator makes a brief presentation about the content of the step using cards or transparencies. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 99

101 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Time 40 minutes in total: 5 minutes to write answers on cards 25 minutes to display, discuss, and summarize the group s ideas 10 minutes for the final presentation. Variation The participants (instead of the facilitator) come forward and read what is written on their own cards, grouping together ideas that are similar. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: ANALYSIS IN SMALL GROUPS To analyze the decision-making space for a particular advocacy proposal. Use This technique can be used to analyze hypothetical situations or as part of the planning process for a real advocacy initiative. The participants need to have some knowledge, experience, or information about the decision-making space for in-depth analysis. In some cases the facilitator may need to provide the participants with additional information. Process 1. The participants re-form the same small groups that they were in previously when they formulated their advocacy proposals (between 3 and 6 persons per group). Each small group does an analysis of the decision-making space. 2. Each small group is given Worksheet 1 ( Analysis of the Decision-Making Space ), on which the following questions appear: What is the decision-making space for this proposal? Who exactly has decision-making power with regard to the proposal? What process (formal or informal) will be used to make the decision? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 100

102 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 In what time period will the decision be made? Each group writes its responses to these questions on a sheet of newsprint. 3. Each small group presents its answers, followed by a general discussion. The facilitator encourages in-depth analysis by asking some of the following questions: At what points in the decision-making process can proposals and inputs be put forward by outsiders? At what points in the decision-making process can we have influence? What happens after a decision is made? What mechanisms exist for follow-up? What information are we lacking? What can we do to fill each information gap? 4. When doing a wrap-up of this step, the facilitator should emphasize the importance of gathering information to use in the analysis, of identifying information gaps, and of following up later to fill these gaps. Time 1 hour and 45 minutes in total: 45 minutes for work in small groups 30 minutes for the small group presentations 30 minutes of discussion and wrap-up. Variation 1: Analysis of a Hypothetical Case If there are time constraints, or if the facilitator wants to keep things simple, s/he can use a hypothetical case to allow participants to practice analyzing a decision-making space. This case should relate to the advocacy interests of the participants. The facilitator can prepare cards with the first and last names of fictitious actors who operate within the hypothetical space. Later, in plenary, the same four questions listed in step 2 above can be used to start a discussion. To end, the facilitator summarizes the ideas and methodologies related to the step. Time 1 hour in total: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 101

103 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 20 minutes for the presentation of the hypothetical case with its actors 40 minutes of discussion and wrap-up. Variation 2: The Fishbowl When a group of participants is already working on a particular advocacy proposal, discussion can take place in plenary. This variation is less time-consuming than the others. 1. Six chairs are placed in a circle. Five participants volunteer to sit in five of the chairs and the sixth chair is left unoccupied. The remaining participants sit in a larger circle around the circle of volunteers. 2. The facilitator carefully explains the instructions for the fishbowl. One by one s/he asks the four questions (from the list in step 2 of this technique) and the small group in the inner circle discusses them. The rest of the participants in the outer circle listen to the discussion. When someone from the outer circle wants to join in the discussion, s/he can go sit in the empty chair in the inner circle and speak. When this happens, any person in the inner circle who would like to withdraw from the discussion can move to the outer circle, leaving an empty chair for someone else to occupy. 3. The facilitator records the main points of the discussion on a sheet of newsprint to be referred to later during the wrap-up. 4. After discussion of the first two questions, the volunteers in the inner circle can be changed so that everyone has an opportunity to participate. Time Approximately 1 hour, depending on the depth of the discussion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 102

104 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Step 3 Worksheet 1 Analysis of the Decision-Making Space Advocacy proposal What is the decisionmaking space? Who exactly has decision-making power with regard to the proposal? What process (formal or informal) will be used to make the decision? In what time period will the decision be made? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 103

105 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Step 3 Resource 1 STEP 3: ANALYZE THE DECISION-MAKING SPACE How and when will decisions be made about the proposal? Who will make them? PURPOSE OF THE STEP To identify who has the decisionmaking power with regard to the proposal, what the decisionmaking process will be, and the specific time frame (if any) in which the decision will be made. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 104

106 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Step 3 Resource 2 WHO WILL DECIDE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? The decisionmaker HOW WILL THE DECISION BE MADE? Formal process Informal process WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 105

107 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Step 3 Resource 3 WHEN WILL THE DECISION BE MADE? Deadline Opportune moments Follow-up mechanisms WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 106

108 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 3 Step 3 Resource 4 LESSONS LEARNED Design strategies to fill information gaps. Know the institutional structure of the state. Get objective, up-todate, and relevant information. Do research and seek expert advice. Understand the public policy process. Do systematic follow-up of new information. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 107

109 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 STEP 4: Analyze Channels of Influence Who are the actors that can influence the decision-making process? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 108

110 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 STEP 4: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Establish the importance of identifying and analyzing the channels for influencing the decisionmaker. 2. Understand the essential elements involved in identifying channels of influence. 3. Apply the criteria for identifying channels of influence to a specific advocacy initiative. 4. Establish the importance of using good information to do objective analysis. STEP 4: KEY CONCEPTS Key Concepts 1. Why identify channels of influence? 2. Identification of actors. 3. Classification of actors as allies, undecided persons, or opponents. 4. Prioritization of key actors. 5. Analyzing the interests of the decision-maker and key actors. 6. Lessons learned from experience. 1. Introducing the step. 2. Power mapping. 3. Analyzing the interests of key actors. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Identification of actors in relation to an advocacy initiative. 2. Classification and prioritization of key actors. 3. Identification of the interests of the decision-maker and the key actors. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 109

111 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 STEP 4: KEY CONCEPTS 1. Why Identify Channels of Influence? When a group undertaking an advocacy initiative has figured out who the decisionmaker is, what the decision-making process will be, and the time period in which the decision will be made, it is ready to pass to the next step: the identification and analysis of channels of influence. The purpose of this step is to identify those persons who have the power to influence the decision-maker, positively or negatively, with regard to the proposal. Knowing the identify of these key actors and analyzing their personal, social, economic, and political interests will give the group the inputs it needs to define strategies of influence. Power mapping (Technique 2) is used to identify the most important actors to be targeted by an advocacy campaign. The following concepts are basic to the power mapping process. 2. Identification of Actors People who have some interest in the proposal as well as some power to influence the decision-maker may come from many sectors of society. This universe of actors generally includes: Friends and relatives of the decision-maker Advisers Representatives of government institutions (at the local, regional, and national levels) Leaders of political parties Representatives of professional organizations and the business community Directors of nongovernmental organizations Religious, academic, and professional leaders Key figures in the media Representatives of international aid agencies Government officials from other nations. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that it is individuals, with first and last names, and not institutions, who make decisions. For this reason, specific individuals within institutions should be identified when doing the power mapping exercise. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 110

112 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 3. Classification of Actors as Allies, Undecided Persons, or Opponents After identifying the universe of actors with interest in the proposal and some ability to influence the decision-maker, it is important to classify them according to their public posture and personal attitude toward the proposal. The key actors can thus be classified as allies, undecided persons, or opponents. Allies are people who agree with the proposal, for whatever reason, and who might indicate their support publicly at a particular moment. They tend to be people outside the core group that is organizing the advocacy initiative, although they may join a coalition at some time during the campaign. The group will need to inform, consult, orient, and motivate these allies in order to convert their support into concrete actions. Opponents are against the proposal, for whatever reason. They are unlikely to modify their position unless substantive changes are made in the proposal. Unless the group organizing the initiative takes steps to curtail the impact of its opponents, they can do a lot of harm. Undecided persons are those who have not taken a position on the advocacy proposal and have the potential to become either allies or opponents. They are able to influence the decision-making process, but normally will not act either for or against the proposal without considerable persuasion. Some people are undecided because their personal and institutional interests are in conflict. In other cases, undecided persons may want to support a proposal, but because of their high public profile they are hesitant to do so openly. At other times, undecided persons prefer not to take a position because they feel they lack sufficient information about the proposal. Generally the decision-maker is a key undecided person who needs to be persuaded of the desirability of the advocacy proposal. There is no need to come up with an advocacy strategy to convince someone to favor a proposal if s/he is already an ally. On the other hand, if the decision-maker is an opponent, it will be tremendously difficult to get the proposal approved. In the latter case, it is advisable to reformulate the proposal so as to make it more politically feasible within a particular context. It is also possible to change the proposal so that another person becomes the decision-maker, leaving the opponent on the sidelines. It is important to emphasize that each person should be classified in light of his or her position vis-à-vis a particular advocacy proposal. Classifications are fluid: people who are allies today can become opponents tomorrow when a different advocacy proposal is put forth, and vice versa. 4. Prioritization of Key Actors The third step in power mapping is the prioritization of certain allies, undecided persons, and opponents as key actors based on two criteria: Their level of interest in the proposal WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 111

113 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Their power to influence the decision-maker. The challenge is to identify a manageable number of people who are willing and able to exert influence on the decision-maker in relation to the proposal, whether by promoting its approval or, conversely, by creating obstacles and making its approval more difficult. The people who are singled out as channels of influence will have much to do with whether the advocacy initiative is a success or failure. 5. Analyzing the Interests of the Decision-Maker and Key Actors Once the group has identified the decision-maker and other key actors, the next step is the analysis of the personal, social, economic, and political interests and motivations of each individual. It is important to be aware that no decision that is political in nature is made simply because someone else asked for it to be made. The decision-maker analyzes the proposal based on his or her own interests and decides, for or against, depending upon the benefits that may be reaped or the problems that may be avoided or solved. To discern the interests and motivations of the key actors, the group should look at their personal characteristics, including religion, socioeconomic class, academic training, and political party affiliation, as well as their aspirations and personal likes and dislikes. Finally, it is important to reflect on the possible implications that this analysis of key actors may have on the formulation of the advocacy proposal and the design of strategies that make use of channels of influence. 6. Lessons Learned from Experience The power mapping should be done in relation to an actual advocacy proposal and not as a hypothetical exercise. The identification of key actors should be based upon their level of interest in the proposal and their power to influence the decision-maker. The power to influence the decision-maker derives from various sources. It may be based on personal ties (such as friendship, a godparent relationship, etc.). In other cases it may derive from economic power, the capacity to convene or mobilize social groups, access to or control of the mass media, or affiliation with a political party or faith community. The power map is subject to constant changes brought about by shifts in the political landscape, changes in the identity of the decision-maker, and other factors. Given this reality, the power map should be updated on an ongoing basis as new information becomes available. In the power mapping exercise it is important not to confuse a group s traditional friends and enemies with the allies and opponents of a particular advocacy proposal. To the extent possible, a group should try to identify individual allies WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 112

114 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 and undecided persons within sectors that have traditionally been the group s adversaries, rather than simply perceiving these sectors as homogenous. For example, a government in power will include people who represent different tendencies within the ruling party. Different figures within the business community represent different interests (financial, agro-export, commercial, industrial). Developing alliances with key people around a particular proposal at a particular moment can be more important to the success of an advocacy campaign than relying on the same old predictable alliances with those who almost always take the same positions as the group. When doing power mapping, access to objective and accurate information is extremely important. Thus, when advocates do not know something (for example, an actor s position with respect to the proposal or the influence that s/he has with the decision-maker), they must do research and seek out people who can provide the information. The analysis of the interests and motivations of the key actors gives clues as to which influence strategies are likely to be the most effective for a particular advocacy campaign. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 113

115 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 STEP 4: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: INTRODUCING THE STEP To introduce Step 4 by using the ideas of the participants to talk about essential elements in the identification and analysis of channels of influence. Use This technique is a participatory way to begin. It allows the group to generate its own criteria for the analysis of channels of influence. Process 1. The facilitator starts the discussion by asking: What are channels of influence? What is the purpose of identifying and analyzing the channels of influence? What things should we keep in mind in order to identify the channels of influence? 2. The facilitator records the responses on a sheet of newsprint, and, after several minutes of discussion, summarizes what the participants have said. 3. The discussion feeds into an initial presentation by the facilitator with cards, newsprint, or transparencies to clarify the purpose of the step and its relation to the other steps of the methodology. 4. The concept of power mapping is introduced and the group is asked to comment on it. 5. Building on this discussion, the facilitator continues the presentation, using transparencies, newsprint, or cards to clarify the use of the power map and to explain the definitions of allies, opponents, and undecided persons. S/he emphasizes that the classification of different people is based upon their interest in the proposal and their power to influence the decision-maker in relation to the proposal. Finally, the facilitator shares some of the lessons learned from experience. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 114

116 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 6. After a brief discussion, the facilitator ends the session by reminding the participants of the main points that have been touched upon. Time 40 minutes in total: 15 minutes for an initial discussion 15 minutes for the presentation 10 minutes for the final discussion and wrap-up. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: POWER MAPPING To apply the concepts and methods for the identification of channels of influence to a particular advocacy proposal. To prepare a power map that visually depicts the people who can potentially influence a decision-maker in relation to an advocacy proposal. Use This technique stimulates participation and creativity. It is challenging and complex, especially when applied to real-life situations. It also highlights the fact that a group needs access to objective and accurate information in order to learn the interests and influence of different actors. Process 1. Three small groups are formed, as in the preceding three steps. The groups will work on the same advocacy proposal, with the same decision-maker, as they did previously. 2. The facilitator gives each small group 30 cards, 10 each of three different colors. S/he explains that each color refers to a category of people allies, opponents, or undecided persons. 3. Each small group identifies allies, opponents, and undecided persons, between 5 and 10 people in each category. Each actor s name is recorded on a card of the appropriate color, along with the institution he or she represents. The group WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 115

117 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 members should discuss why they believe that each of the persons identified wields influence over the decision-maker before writing the name on a card. 4. The facilitator distributes three worksheets to each group: Worksheet 1, Matrix to Prioritize Allies ; Worksheet 2, Matrix to Prioritize Opponents ; and Worksheet 3, Matrix to Prioritize Undecided Persons. Using the worksheets, each group prioritizes the actors in each of the three categories, based on their level of interest in the proposal and their power to influence the decision-maker. 5. The facilitator posts a sheet of newsprint titled Power Map, with the name of the decision-maker written in the center (see Worksheet 4 for an example). The newsprint is divided into three parts, one for each category of actor. For example, the part on top might be marked allies, the part on the left opponents, and the part on the right undecided persons. 6. The facilitator posts a second sheet of newsprint with the title Information Gaps. S/he tells the participants that as items come up in discussion where more information is required, s/he will record them on the newsprint. A third sheet of newsprint is put up beside it with the title Strategies for Filling Information Gaps. 7. Next, one person from each small group comes to the front and reads aloud the names of allies written on the group s cards, hanging the cards on the part of the newsprint designated for allies. The names of key allies with the most interest and influence should be hung closest to the name of the decision-maker; these will be the names located in (or closest to) the upper-right quadrant of the matrix on the worksheet. If the name of an ally has already been placed on the newsprint, there is no need to repeat it. 8. After each small group shares the names of allies, the rest of the participants are asked for their comments. The goal is to correct any information that is erroneous, to identify points where more information is needed, and to reach a consensus about which allies are most important for this particular advocacy proposal. The facilitator should record information gaps on the newsprint and ask the participants to share ideas about how to fill the gaps, recording these ideas on the newsprint as well. 9. The same process is repeated with the cards for opponents and undecided persons. 10. The facilitator summarizes the discussion and closes the session. Time 2 hours in total: 60 minutes in small groups 40 minutes for presentations by the small groups 20 minutes for the final discussion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 116

118 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Variation 1 After the presentations of the small groups, the matrixes can be used in plenary to prioritize the key actors. In addition, the actors from all three categories can be superimposed on one matrix so as to visualize the positions of all of the key actors. Variation 2 Three small groups are formed and each is given 10 cards. One small group identifies allies, the other opponents, and the third undecided persons. The cards for each small group are a different color. When it comes time to present the different actors, each member of a small group sticks one of the cards on his/her chest and role-plays that person, explaining who s/he is, what his/her position is with respect to the proposal, what his/her interests are, and how s/he is able to influence the decision-maker. Variation 3 A soccer field can be used as an illustration when it comes time to present the different people on the power map who can influence the decision-making process. On several sheets of newsprint the facilitator draws people running on a soccer field. One team is trying to make a goal (the group that is promoting the advocacy initiative and its allies), while another is playing defense (the opponents). There are a few undecided persons who are running around the field randomly and are not on either team. The decisionmaker is represented by the goalie, because if the team is successful in convincing him or her, the proposal will be approved. Each team (category of actors) wears uniforms that are a different color. The group promoting the initiative and its allies should be represented by two colors that are similar, but not exactly the same. Objective TECHNIQUE 3: ANALYZING THE INTERESTS OF KEY ACTORS To develop arguments and strategies of influence based on an analysis of the interests of the decision-maker and of other key actors. Use In training sessions where the objective is to learn about the participatory planning method for advocacy using hypothetical examples, this technique is an option. It can be WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 117

119 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 used in an abbreviated way to show the usefulness of analyzing the interests of key actors. If the group is actually planning an advocacy initiative, this technique is essential. Ideally it should be repeated several times throughout the planning process. The arguments and strategies that are developed using this technique will be picked up again in Step 6 of the methodology. This technique complements the power mapping exercise and requires that the group have a good deal of information about the key actors. Process 1. When the group has finished the power mapping exercise, the facilitator repeats the names of the key actors who have been prioritized by the participants and writes their names on a fresh sheet of newsprint. The key actors should be a mix of allies, opponents, and undecided persons. 2. The facilitator starts a discussion in plenary based on the following questions: What do we want from the decision-maker? What do we want from the allies? What do we want from the opponents? What do we want from the undecided persons? The responses are written on a sheet of newsprint. During the discussion, the facilitator should guide the group toward understanding that they want to convince the decision-maker to approve the proposal, convert the support of allies into concrete actions, neutralize the negative impact of opponents, and persuade undecided persons to support the proposal. 3. Once the key actors have been determined, two or three small groups are formed to analyze their interests and to develop strategies or arguments based on these interests. The names of the key actors are distributed among the small groups. Each small group is given Worksheet 5 ( Table to Analyze the Interests of Key Actors ) and replicates the table on a sheet of newsprint. Names of key actors are written in the left-hand column of the table, and the remaining cells are then filled in for each person in the corresponding row. 4. One by one the small groups present their work in plenary. 5. The facilitator invites comments about the work of the other small groups with the purpose of improving the analysis and providing new information. 6. The facilitator highlights the main points of the discussion so that later the group can return to them in Step 6 when planning the initiative. It is recommended that the WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 118

120 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 main strategies or arguments that have been defined by the groups be recorded on a sheet of newsprint. Time 1 hour and 10 minutes in total: 20 minutes for the initial discussion in plenary 25 minutes for work in small groups 15 minutes for presentations by the small groups 10 minutes for the wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 119

121 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Worksheet 1 Matrix to Prioritize Allies 10 9 Example: Person 8 A Power to influence the decision-maker Level of interest in the proposal Instructions: For each ally, rate the person s power to influence the decision-maker and their level of interest in the proposal on a scale of 1 to 10. Write the person s name in the cell where the corresponding row and column intersect. For example, Person A rates 9 on power to influence and 4 on level of interest. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 120

122 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Worksheet 2 Matrix to Prioritize Opponents Power to influence the decision-maker Example: Person B Level of interest in the proposal Instructions: For each opponent, rate the person s power to influence the decisionmaker and their level of interest in the proposal on a scale of 1 to 10. Write the person s name in the cell where the corresponding row and column intersect. For example, Person B rates 5 on power to influence and 8 on level of interest. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 121

123 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Worksheet 3 Matrix to Prioritize Undecided Persons Power to influence the decision-maker 7 6 Example: Person C Level of interest in the proposal Instructions: For each undecided person, rate the person s power to influence the decision-maker and their level of interest in the proposal on a scale of 1 to 10. Write the person s name in the cell where the corresponding row and column intersect. For example, Person C rates 6 on power to influence and 2 on level of interest. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 122

124 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Worksheet 4 Power Map Allies Ally Ally Ally Key ally Key ally Key ally Key opponent Decisionmaker Undecided person Key opponent Key undecided person Undecided persons Opponent Opponent Undecided person Opponents Opponent Undecided person Undecided person WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 123

125 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Worksheet 5 Table to Analyze the Interests of Key Actors Key actor Actor s classification (decision-maker, opponent, ally, or undecided person) Actor s personal, political, ideological, economic, and party interests with respect to the proposal Arguments or strategies geared toward the actor WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 124

126 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 1 STEP 4: ANALYZE CHANNELS OF INFLUENCE Who are the actors that can influence the decision-making process? PURPOSE OF THE STEP Identify those persons who have the power to influence the decision-maker and use this information to define effective advocacy strategies. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 125

127 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 2 CLASSIFICATION OF KEY ACTORS ALLIES Agree with the proposal because of their interests and motives INFORMATION Convert their support into concrete actions WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 126

128 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 2, continued Oppose the proposal because of their interests and motives. OPPONENTS Difficult to convince them without modifying the proposal. Willing and able to derail the initiative. Taking steps to minimize their impact is recommended. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 127

129 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 2, continued Do not take a position on the proposal. UNDECIDED PERSONS Given their interests, may become either allies or opponents. Normally do not intervene unless persuaded. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 128

130 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 3 PRIORITIZATION OF KEY ACTORS By their level of interest in the proposal By their power to influence the decision-maker Analysis of the interests of the decision-maker and of key actors Prepare arguments and strategies that bear in mind the analysis of interests, motivations, and characteristics of the key actors WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 129

131 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 4 Step 4 Resource 4 LESSONS LEARNED Do the analysis in relation to a particular proposal. The power to influence derives from different sources. Revisit the analysis when changes occur in the political landscape. Use information that is objective, up-to-date, and relevant. Research and seek out advice to fill information gaps. Traditional enemies can sometimes be converted into allies for a particular proposal. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 130

132 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 STEP 5: Do a SWOT Analysis What are the group s strengths and weaknesses for doing advocacy? What opportunities and threats might a campaign entail? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 131

133 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 STEP 5: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. To establish the importance of doing self-analysis that is objective and self-critical with respect to an advocacy initiative. 2. To share important elements to keep in mind when identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and devising solutions. 3. To apply the criteria for doing a SWOT analysis using a hypothetical example or a specific advocacy initiative. Key Concepts 1. Self-analysis: identification of internal strengths and weaknesses. 2. Identification of opportunities and threats in the political environment. 3. Lessons learned from experience. 1. Introducing self-analysis. 2. Self-analysis exercise. 3. Prioritization of strengths and weaknesses. Practical Techniques Learning indicators 1. Identification and prioritization of the group s strengths and weaknesses in relation to an advocacy initiative. 2. Generation of a list of actions that might be taken to overcome the weaknesses. 3. Identification and prioritization of the most important opportunities and threats in the political environment. 4. Generation of a list of actions that take advantage of opportunities and minimize threats. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 132

134 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 STEP 5: KEY CONCEPTS Steps 1 through 4 of the basic methodology are building blocks for the formulation of influence strategies for an advocacy campaign. Before defining such strategies, it is important to analyze the internal and external factors that might affect the success of the campaign. This analysis looks at strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), and threats (T), and is therefore known as a SWOT analysis. By doing self-analysis, a group that will be carrying out an advocacy campaign can identify its own strengths and weaknesses that might affect the initiative s success. Then concrete actions can be planned to take advantage of the group s strengths and overcome its weaknesses. Similarly, by analyzing potential opportunities and threats in the external political environment, the group can identify factors that might help or hinder an advocacy initiative, and plan actions accordingly. After doing the SWOT analysis, the group or coalition should revisit its advocacy proposal and check to see whether it is still feasible in light of the power map and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that have been identified. 1. Self-analysis: Identification of Internal Strengths and Weaknesses The identification of a group or coalition s internal strengths and weaknesses is called self-analysis. It should be a self-critical exercise through which the core group organizing an advocacy campaign identifies its positive attributes that can be used to advantage during the campaign, as well as potential weaknesses in its capacity to do effective advocacy. The analysis includes brainstorming possible ways to overcome the most important weaknesses. Self-analysis can be done at any time during the planning process for an advocacy campaign, but it should always include the following three steps. First, the group examines its own strengths and weaknesses in relation to advocacy in general and in relation to a specific advocacy campaign. It should consider: (a) The organization of the group or coalition, in terms of its: Legitimacy and representativity Coverage (the number of members, their racial/ethnic and gender make-up, and their geographic distribution) Quality of leadership Capacity to gather people together and mobilize the grassroots Equity in participation and decision-making authority of men and women and of different racial/ethnic groups within the group or coalition Possibilities for building alliances and coalitions. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 133

135 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 (b) Relationships of the group or coalition with: State institutions Other groups or sectors of civil society Media outlets. (c) The capacities of the group or coalition to: Conduct research about public policies and official plans and programs Access and use information about the issue in question and about the way the state functions Do strategic and operational planning Lobby and negotiate Do press work Do internal monitoring and evaluation Mobilize broad sectors of society. (d) Resources of the group or coalition: Human Material Economic Technical. Second, the group should think of possible ways to address the weaknesses that have been identified. And finally, the group should develop a list of several activities that might be undertaken to strengthen its institutional capacity to carry out advocacy campaigns. 2. Identification of Opportunities and Threats in the Political Environment In addition to identifying the internal strengths and weaknesses of the group or coalition that is promoting a campaign, it is also important to identify opportunities and threats in the political environment. Opportunities are elements that favor the campaign and enhance the possibility of its success. Threats, on the other hand, are unfavorable external factors that may pose obstacles or risks to the campaign. When planning strategies, it is important to know how to take advantage of the opportunities and minimize the impact of the threats. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 134

136 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 3. Lessons Learned from Experience The internal organization of the core group that is promoting an advocacy initiative is critical to its success or failure. Organizations that decide to engage in advocacy should be prepared to commit human, material, and economic resources to the planning and execution of advocacy initiatives. Organizations should understand this investment of resources not just as a need in the short term, until the proposal is approved, but also as a way, over the medium term, to promote institutional strengthening and the development of a more professional staff with expertise on particular issues. In this way, advocacy initiatives contribute to the empowerment of civil society. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 135

137 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 STEP 5: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: INTRODUCING SELF-ANALYSIS To begin a reflection about this step of the methodology by exploring its purpose and the key aspects of self-analysis. Use This technique is especially useful to help differentiate between a general diagnostic survey of an organization or a community and the self-analysis step within an advocacy planning process. Unless this distinction is clear, the findings of the self-analysis may not be applied properly. Process 1. The facilitator asks the participants: What is a self-analysis? Why is self-analysis helpful? When should self-analysis be done? During the initial discussion, the facilitator records the answers that the participants give on a sheet of newsprint. 2. The facilitator makes a presentation about self-analysis using transparencies, sheets of paper, or cards. S/he mentions its purpose, its relationship to the other steps of the basic advocacy methodology, specific aspects of self-analysis, and lessons learned from experience. Emphasis should be given to the fact that self-analysis of an organization is not done in a general way, but rather in relationship to its capacity to undertake a particular advocacy initiative. 3. The group asks questions and holds a brief discussion. 4. The facilitator synthesizes and ties together the main points of the discussion. Time 40 minutes in total: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 136

138 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 15 minutes for the initial discussion 15 minutes for the presentation 10 minutes for the final discussion. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: SELF-ANALYSIS EXERCISE To do a self-analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the group that is undertaking an advocacy initiative, focusing on key aspects as determined by the same group. Use It is important to ensure that the self-analysis is done within the context of a particular initiative, and that it takes into account the important aspects identified by the group. Process 1. The facilitator asks the following question in plenary, and each participant writes his or her own answers on cards: What are the most important aspects that we should keep in mind when doing a self-analysis of our group or coalition? The participants write one important aspect on each card, using a maximum of three cards per person. It is a good idea to give some examples before they begin writing (for example, the ability to bring people together for meetings, access to the decision-maker, capacity to do research). It is fine if the participants write the same aspects that the facilitator mentioned in the earlier presentation on their cards. 2. The participants hang their cards on a sheet of newsprint or on a blackboard in a visible place in front of the group. With the help of the group, the facilitator groups the cards with similar ideas and discards duplicate answers, narrowing the number of aspects down to five or six. These are posted on a separate sheet of newsprint, and if necessary each can be written on a new card. 3. The facilitator prepares a sheet of newsprint with the Table for Participatory Selfanalysis (see Worksheet 1 for an example). The facilitator hangs the cards in the column entitled Key Aspects. Each participant uses a marker to write an x beside each of the aspects on the list. If s/he considers a particular aspect to be a weakness for the group, the x is written in the left-hand column, and if it is a strength, in the right-hand column. Remind the group that the purpose of the WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 137

139 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 exercise is to assess the group s capabilities with respect to a particular advocacy initiative. 4. The facilitator then starts a discussion in plenary by asking: Given what we have said so far, what are our most important strengths as a group? Every time someone mentions one of the aspects, the facilitator asks why s/he considers it to be a strength. If others believe that the same aspect is a weakness, ensure that the group listens to what they have to say as well. Later, the facilitator helps the group reach a consensus. The most important strengths are posted on a sheet of newsprint that is divided into two columns (for strengths and weaknesses). 5. The same process is repeated for weaknesses. 6. As an input into the analysis of strengths and weaknesses, the facilitator may want to remind the group of the sources of civil society s power, which were discussed earlier during the introduction to advocacy. To aid in the identification of strengths and weaknesses, the facilitator asks: Which sources of power do we actually have, which ones do we not have, and why? 7. Reference is also made to the goals that were established by the group during Step 2 of the participatory planning methodology. The facilitator asks the group the following questions to start a reflection: Are the conditions present for us to be able to accomplish the goals that we have set for ourselves? What things are we doing well? What things do we need to improve? 8. The facilitator draws the discussion to a close by making reference to the lists of strengths and weaknesses generated by the group. Time 1 hour and 10 minutes in total: 15 minutes to establish what the key aspects are 15 minutes for individual voting 30 minutes for the discussion 10 minutes for wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 138

140 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Variation The participants can be given cards of two different colors (two or three cards of each color) and instructed to write down the most important strengths and the most serious weaknesses. The facilitator specifies which color corresponds to strengths and which to weaknesses. The participants come to the front to hang up their cards. The facilitator organizes the cards, grouping those with similar ideas, until there is one list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the group with relation to the one particular advocacy initiative. Objectives TECHNIQUE 3: PRIORITIZATION OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES To prioritize the strengths and weaknesses that have been identified with respect to the advocacy initiative. To come up with a list of ways to overcome the main weaknesses and take advantage of the main strengths, as a way to help define strategies. Use This technique is useful to ensure that the prioritization of strengths and weaknesses reflects a balance between their potential impacts on the accomplishment of the proposal and on the achievement of the group or coalition s internal goals. Process 1. Two small groups are formed, one to analyze strengths and the other to analyze weaknesses. The group analyzing strengths is given Worksheet 2, Matrix to Prioritize Strengths. The group analyzing weaknesses is given Worksheet 3, Matrix to Prioritize Weaknesses. Each group reproduces its matrix on a sheet of newsprint. 2. The facilitator gives the small groups the lists of strengths and weaknesses that were generated during Technique 2, preferably with fewer than 10 items on each list. Participants consider each strength or weakness in terms of two criteria: its impact on the group s ability to get the proposal approved, and its impact on the group s ability to meet internal goals. Each strength or weakness is rated on a scale of 1 to 10 for each of the two criteria, as shown on the matrix. The small group assigns a color or symbol to each strength or weakness and places it on the matrix in the cell where the two ratings intersect. Afterwards, each group should identify the three or four weaknesses or strengths they consider to be most important. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 139

141 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 3. Worksheet 4 ( Table to Analyze and Overcome Weaknesses ) and Worksheet 5 ( Table to Analyze and Make Use of Strengths ) are given to the respective groups. Each small group fills out its table based on the strengths and weaknesses that it has prioritized. 4. After the presentations by the small groups, the facilitator encourages the participants to share comments that will help fine-tune the analysis and provide useful information for the design of strategies. 5. The facilitator summarizes what has been said and explains that this information will feed into the next step and the design of strategies. Time 1 hour and 40 minutes in total: 60 minutes for work in small groups 20 minutes for presentations by the small groups 15 minutes for discussion 5 minutes for drawing conclusions. Variation 1 When the group is small, the work on the matrixes and tables can be done in plenary. Variation 2 This variation is simple and fast-moving, but it allows a group to do in-depth analysis. It involves prioritizing strengths and weaknesses without using the two criteria from the matrix, and later brainstorming actions that might be taken to overcome the group s weaknesses. It is especially useful for large groups or when time is short. 1. After the group has made a list of its strengths with respect to the advocacy initiative (a maximum of eight strengths), each person is given three slips of paper, each of a different color. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 are written on the slips of paper. 2. Each participant comes forward and votes for the three strengths that s/he considers to be the most important, according to their possible impact on the accomplishment of the proposal and on democratic practices within the group or coalition. Participants place the number 3 next to the strength that they consider most important. (Note: Instead of slips of paper, people can write 1, 2, or 3 with a marker.) 3. The same process is followed for weaknesses. 4. The facilitator adds up the number of points for each strength and weakness, indicating which one has the highest number of points. These will be the priorities. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 140

142 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 5. Finally, in plenary, the facilitator helps the group to identify actions that might be taken to overcome each of the weaknesses that have been prioritized. Time 45 minutes in total: 10 minutes for the voting 10 minutes to determine the strengths and weaknesses that are priorities 20 minutes to fill out the table 5 minutes for the final wrap-up. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 141

143 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Worksheet 1 Table for Participatory Self-analysis SELF-ANALYSIS KEY ASPECT WEAKNESS - - STRENGTH + + Knowledge of the issue Capacity to bring people together for meetings and to mobilize the grassroots Levels of consensus and clarity regarding vision and mission Relations with mass media outlets Technical resources Capacity for strategic and operational planning WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 142

144 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Worksheet 2 Matrix to Prioritize Strengths 10 9 Impact on ability to get the proposal approved Impact on the ability to meet internal goals Strength 3 Strength 1 Strength 2 Strength 4 WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 143

145 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Worksheet 3 Matrix to Prioritize Weaknesses 10 9 Impact on ability to get the proposal approved Impact on the ability to meet internal goals Weakness 1 Weakness 2 Weakness 3 Weakness 4 WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 144

146 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Worksheet 4 Table to Analyze and Overcome Weaknesses Possible consequences for our initiative in terms of: Weakness Causes of the weakness Ability to get the proposal approved Ability to meet internal goals Proposed solution WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 145

147 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Worksheet 5 Table to Analyze and Make Use of Strengths Possible consequences for our initiative in terms of: Strength Factors that contribute to this strength Ability to get the proposal approved Ability to meet internal goals Possible ways to play up this strength WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 146

148 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 1 STEP 5: DO A SWOT ANALYSIS What are the group s strengths/weaknesses in terms of its capacity to do advocacy? What opportunities and threats might a campaign entail? Identify the group s strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis the advocacy initiative in order to anticipate possible obstacles and develop influence strategies to address them. Get a visual image of the overall situation that can help in the definition of strategies to influence the decision-maker and to strengthen the organization of the group or coalition. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 147

149 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 2 IDENTIFICATION OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Requires a high level of self-criticism Should be done in relationship to an advocacy initiative Gives a visual image of the interplay of different elements: Organization Relations Capacities Resources WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 148

150 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 3 ASPECTS TO KEEP IN MIND Organizational situation Legitimacy and representativity Diversity Quality of leadership Geographic reach Possibility of building alliances and coalitions Equitable participation Levels of consensus and clarity regarding mission WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 149

151 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 4 GROUP S RELATIONS WITH State institutions Civil society groups Media outlets Conduct research about policies, plans, and programs Lobby and negotiate GROUP S CAPACITY TO Access and use information about the issue at hand Monitor and evaluate Do strategic and operational planning WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 150

152 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 5 RESOURCES Human Material Economic Technical WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 151

153 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 6 PRIORITIZATION OF WEAKNESSES AND IDENTIFICATION OF WAYS TO ADDRESS THEM Identify weaknesses that might become obstacles for a successful initiative Propose feasible actions to take Reevaluate the proposal if weaknesses cannot be overcome WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 152

154 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 5 Step 5 Resource 7 LESSONS LEARNED Invest in strengthening the group s organizational capacity over the medium term. Dedicate enough resources and time for the planning and execution of the initiative. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 153

155 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 STEP 6: Design Advocacy Strategies How can we influence the decision that is made about the proposal? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 154

156 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 STEP 6: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Clarify different types of advocacy strategies and reflect on the importance of each one with regard to a particular advocacy initiative. 2. Collect information that will help in the implementation of different strategies. 1. What is a strategy? 2. Types of advocacy strategies. 3. Lessons learned from experience. Key Concepts 1. Initial discussion of strategies. 2. Socio-dramas about strategies. Practical Techniques Learning Indicators 1. Definition of five principal strategies of influence. 2. Information collected about current events and political, economic, and social trends to use in the planning of advocacy strategies. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 155

157 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 STEP 6: KEY CONCEPTS 1. What Is a Strategy? A strategy is a set of activities directed toward the accomplishment of a concrete objective. In the case of advocacy efforts, the objective is to convince or persuade the decision-maker targeted by the campaign to approve the proposal. The strategies and activities of an advocacy campaign should be as varied and creative as possible. The previous steps in the planning process should also be taken into account, especially: Interests and motivations of the people identified on the power map Strengths and weaknesses of the group that is organizing the campaign Opportunities and threats in the political environment. The purpose of Step 6 is to make decisions about the strategies that the group leading an advocacy initiative will use to try to influence the decision-maker and other key actors. 2. Types of Advocacy Strategies Many different kinds of activities need to be carried out to try to influence the decisionmaking space and get a public policy proposal approved. These activities fall into five principal categories. They include lobbying visits to the decision-maker and other key actors; organizing to strengthen the internal structures of the group or coalition that is leading the campaign and to involve the population that is affected by the problem; education and sensitivity-raising to make the decision-maker and the public aware of the problem and the proposed solution; press work to generate favorable public opinion; and mobilization, when the proposal cannot be accomplished by other means and when it is possible to use this form of pressure. These five main advocacy strategies are summarized below and are described in more detail in Resource 1, Table of Advocacy Strategies. Lobbying Lobbying is a face-to-face effort to persuade the person with decision-making power to favor the proposal, to motivate allies to take concrete action in support of the initiative, to convince undecided persons, and to neutralize opponents. Normally it involves direct visits. In addition to communicating the proposal to the decision-maker, lobbying allows organizers to fine-tune the power map and evaluate the impact that the initiative s arguments and activities have on key actors. Lobbying can open up possibilities for negotiation. Before every lobbying visit, the representatives of the group or coalition should prepare very carefully, bearing in mind that they will probably have very little time to state their WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 156

158 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 position and make their arguments. Given this, the group will have to decide who among them has credibility and is best suited to voice their concerns. That person should take along a copy of the proposal summary sheet and should make sure that s/he is familiar with the proposal and the arguments that support it. Lobbying visits are also a rich source of information. Through them, advocates can detect currents of opposition and support, understand more clearly the arguments and objections that different sectors may have with regard to the proposal, and receive advice. After each visit, any new information that has been obtained should be reported back to the group that is coordinating the campaign. Organizing Organizational work serves to broaden and strengthen the group of people who will participate in an advocacy initiative, and builds an internal structure for the campaign that is responsive to the needs of the initiative. Organizing should also serve to motivate and involve the population that is affected by the problem the group is seeking to address. If this does not happen, the advocacy campaign will have little credibility, little social power, and little probability of being successful. Social movements do not come out of nowhere. The energy that sustains them needs to be directed, channeled, and focused. The main way to accomplish this is by building and consolidating networks and coalitions to do advocacy. An advocacy network refers to communication and cooperation among individuals who share a personal commitment to struggle to solve a problem that is of mutual interest. Successful networks have good leadership, an ability to get out their message, mutual trust, and a willingness to share. The term coalition refers to more formal structures that allow individuals and institutions to coordinate and cooperate with one another to work toward a common objective. Coalitions are essential for consolidating social power, gaining broad support for an advocacy campaign, and coordinating actions effectively. Coalitions increase the number of people involved and have the potential to bring together those who are not traditionally allies. Nonetheless, coalitions are fragile by nature and tend to move slowly because decision-making, even about matters of little import, consumes a lot of time and energy. Many times coalitions disintegrate as soon as their immediate objective has been accomplished. To increase the effectiveness of coalition work, the following guidelines should be kept in mind: The objectives of a coalition should be stated very clearly. A coalition should try to build a broad membership without including people or groups that are not firm in their commitment to its stated objectives. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 157

159 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 A coalition should be able to work with a number of different groups, but not all of these groups need to be formal members of the coalition. Each coalition needs a small group of leaders who are deeply committed to solving the selected problem and to the coalition itself, and are willing to subordinate their own interests and those of their organizations to the objectives of the coalition. The leadership group should maintain strong links with the coalition s member organizations. The tasks and responsibilities of the coalition should be defined and distributed in an equitable way. Successful coalitions tend to have members whose strengths complement one another (for example, combining technical expertise with a capacity for grassroots mobilizing). In forming a coalition of organizations or individuals who will engage in advocacy together, it is necessary to figure out who will be in the core group in charge of planning, organizing, and directing the campaign. The core group can be composed of personnel from one member organization or from several. When deciding who is to be part of the core group, it is important to spell out what will be expected of each participant in terms of responsibilities and to agree upon decision-making processes that are transparent and participatory. The objective is to clearly define the ground rules for the coalition. The following questions serve as a guide for defining who s who within a coalition that is undertaking an advocacy initiative: Who are the people and organizations that make up the group or coalition? Who are the people and organizations that make up the team that is directing the campaign? What does one have to do to be a member of the group or coalition? Who are the official representatives of each member organization? In addition to clearly defining the core group of an advocacy campaign, decision-making processes and mechanisms also need to be defined. This is important and should be highlighted, because a lack of clarity can be a source of conflict. The following questions serve as a guide for defining clear decision-making mechanisms in order to ensure greater transparency and avoid conflicts: What, exactly, are the processes that will be used to make decisions within the coalition and within its core organizing group? In particular, how will decisions be made about actions to be taken? How are we going to manage disagreements and conflicts? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 158

160 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 How will the economic resources be managed? Who will be responsible for managing them? How will we guarantee transparency with regard to money matters? Who will participate in decision-making? Will the same people participate all the time or will decision-making be a rotating responsibility? How will responsibilities be delegated? How will the decisions of the core group be communicated to all the organizations or individuals in the coalition? What will be done to allow for the expression of opinions that are different from those of the majority? Who will be part of the team that will do high-level negotiation (if that is necessary)? Who will be the coalition s spokesperson with the press? How are we going to ensure equal participation by men and women within the core group and within the coalition? How are we going to ensure that the people making up the different work committees reflect the overall ethnic composition of the coalition or the affected population? The following suggestions can serve as a guide for the distribution of responsibilities within a coalition that is engaged in advocacy: Establish the minimum needs of the coalition in terms of human, material, and technical resources. Define how much time and which human, material, and technical resources each person or organization will contribute to the group or coalition. Identify the tasks of the member organizations of the coalition and of the core group (for example, press work, research, approaching and relating to the decision-maker, fundraising and financial management). Create work committees or teams with clearly defined responsibilities and functions. Create mechanisms for the monitoring and evaluation of different work areas. Education and sensitivity-raising The group or coalition needs to educate the public and the decision-maker about the problem that it seeks to solve and the solution it is proposing. This strategy can be applied in many different ways, but its immediate objective is almost always to convince WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 159

161 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 people to take concrete actions in support of the initiative by informing them and by raising their sensitivity to the problem. Many times, this strategy requires research to gather information that is then shared with the general public. For example, if the advocacy proposal put forth by a group or coalition involves the implementation of a mechanism to evaluate and remove corrupt judges, research and reporting about the high number of crimes committed by people who have been improperly set free by corrupt judges would help to make the public more aware of this issue and more willing to put pressure on the decision-maker. Press work Press work is closely related to education and sensitivity-raising efforts. In an advocacy initiative, a press strategy is critical because of the important role that public opinion plays in efforts to persuade government officials to change public policies or programs. The objective of a press strategy is to place the topic of the advocacy initiative on the public agenda, to gain credibility for the group or coalition as a source of information about the issue, and to shape public opinion in favor of the proposal. This requires that the target audiences be clearly identified, that the message about the proposal be simple and clear, and that it be carried by the media outlets that are most important in reaching the target audiences. The definition of target audiences for press work requires the identification of those persons, groups, or sectors of the society that the group organizing an advocacy initiative wants to influence through analysis, investigative reporting, or news coverage. Does the group want to educate the public in general, or to make a technical argument that particular government officials will find convincing? Who needs to be motivated to take a particular action? Women? Representatives of international agencies? The crafting of messages tailored to influence one or more audiences is the most creative aspect of press work. This effort should be based on an analysis of the audience to be influenced so that it will find the content and style of a message convincing and motivating. To reach target audiences during an advocacy campaign, a group or coalition needs to have access to the media. This requires an analysis of existing media outlets, the cultivation of relationships of trust with those journalists most likely to cover the issue, and the planning of activities and events that are newsworthy. The challenge is to figure out how to get the press interested in the problem that the advocacy campaign is trying to solve, and then to keep it interested for as long as possible. Mobilization The mobilization of social power, especially mobilization of the population affected by the problem that the group or coalition seeks to solve, is necessary to get the attention of the press, generate political will on the part of government representatives, and open spaces for lobbying and negotiation. Although confrontation is a tactic that can sometimes be employed, it is often more effective to find creative and even WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 160

162 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 humorous ways to create a favorable climate for approval of the proposal. In those instances where mobilization is adopted as a confrontational strategy, there is a risk that the group or coalition will lose credibility or prestige, or that the situation may turn violent. For these reasons, organizers need to do adequate preparation in terms of crowd control, nonviolent resistance to repressive actions by security forces, first aid, and so forth. 3. Lessons Learned from Experience The core group that is organizing an advocacy campaign needs to be politically astute and creative and should have the capacity to do analysis. In forging strategies, advocates should seriously consider the information that was generated during earlier steps of the basic methodology, including the proposal that was drafted in Steps 1 and 2, the decision-maker who was identified in Step 3, the key influential actors who were identified in Step 4, and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats identified in Step 5. For example: If the group s advocacy proposal does not capture the interest of the public or of the key actors that have been targeted by the campaign, then it should be modified and the strategies of public education and press work should be used more aggressively. If the decision-maker does not have the political will to meet with the group that is promoting an advocacy initiative, then the strategies of organizing, press work, and mobilization will need to be applied in order to persuade the decision-maker to meet. If the decision-maker opposes the proposal not for substantive reasons but because s/he lacks information about it, then the group can focus on strategies of lobbying, public education, and press work with a view to helping her/him become better informed. If the decision-maker becomes more entrenched in her/his position when the problem is discussed publicly in the press, then the core group may want to shift to a less confrontational and lower-profile strategy such as lobbying to convince the decision-maker to favor the proposal. If confrontational actions put at risk the active support of a key ally for the campaign, consideration should be given to applying gentler strategies such a lobbying, education/sensitivity-raising, and press work. If the core group does not have the capacity to mobilize the population during the first phase of the campaign, it should focus its efforts on other strategies, including organizing, education/sensitivity-raising, and press work, to try to get the population interested and more involved. If the campaign is successful in WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 161

163 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 garnering more support and more social power over time, then the strategy of mobilization will have a greater impact at a later date. When the group or coalition does not have much credibility with the decisionmaker or with other key actors, it will be very important to lobby allies and undecided persons who do have credibility and the power to influence. The choice of advocacy strategies should also be based on the interests and motivations of the decision-maker and other key actors. As explained in Step 4, simply proposing a change in public policy is not enough to prompt a decision-maker to take action. The person with decision-making power will evaluate the proposal in light of his or her own interests, considering whether or not it benefits him or her in some way or helps to avoid a problem. The goal of an advocacy strategy is to make the decisionmaker, or another important actor, feel that it is in his or her interest to approve the proposal that is on the table. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 162

164 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 STEP 6: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: INITIAL DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIES To begin a reflection about the importance of using different types of strategies within advocacy processes. Use This technique can be used both with groups that have experience doing advocacy and with groups that have little experience. Process 1. The facilitator uses the following questions to guide a reflection in plenary: What is a strategy? Why do we design strategies before we take actions? What are some common advocacy strategies? During the discussion, the facilitator records the answers on sheets of newsprint. 2. The facilitator does a presentation about the concept of advocacy strategies, using transparencies or cards. Time 45 minutes in total: 30 minutes for discussion 15 minutes for the presentation. TECHNIQUE 2: SOCIO-DRAMAS ABOUT STRATEGIES WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 163

165 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Objective To delve more deeply into advocacy strategies in a hands-on fashion by exploring how they may play out in real-life situations. Use Socio-dramas are a creative way to get people to reflect on things that happen in real life. They tend to be most effective with large groups (more than 20 participants). Process 1. Four or five small groups form and each one prepares a socio-drama about a selected advocacy strategy. The groups should try to act out, in a humorous way, how their strategy is most often used by civil society. 2. The groups present their socio-dramas. After each presentation, the facilitator asks the following questions to encourage more in-depth analysis: What did you observe in the socio-drama? What things were done well? What things did not work? What suggestions might we make regarding the use of this strategy? 3. The facilitator wraps up by summarizing the uses, advantages, and disadvantages of the various strategies and the suggestions that were made for making them more effective. Time 1 hour and 35 minutes in total: 20 minutes in small groups to prepare socio-dramas 1 hour to present and analyze the socio-dramas 15 minutes for wrap-up and final discussion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 164

166 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Step 6 Resource 1 Table of Advocacy Strategies Strategy Usefulness How to do it Practical advice Lobbying Communicate the proposal to others. Get to know the positions of key actors and of the decision-maker. Fine-tune the power map. Improve our arguments. Motivate allies and persuade the person with decision-making power and undecided persons. Organizing Form and strengthen the group or coalition that will participate in an advocacy initiative. Decide together on an internal structure for the group or campaign doing advocacy. Motivate the affected population and incorporate it Identify and prioritize actors who will be targeted for lobbying. Set objectives and goals for each targeted person. Analyze the positions, interests, and motivations of key actors in relation to the proposal. Develop arguments to use with each person. Be clear about conclusions that are reached and agreements that are made. Evaluate the meeting. Do follow-up. Figure out who will be part of the core group that is in charge of the campaign. Define mechanisms for communication and for decision-making. Decide how to manage economic resources that are contributed to the campaign. Meet with groups, Prepare adequately for meetings. Set a date and time for lobbying visits. Decide ahead of time what agenda items will be discussed during the visit. Limit our messages and arguments to a small number of key points. Name spokespersons for the group and decide what points they will stress in each lobbying visit. Formalize agreements by putting them in writing. Identify other ways of influencing the person we are lobbying. Follow up with the people who have been visited. Be clear about what is and what is not negotiable. Keep in mind the type of decision-making power or influence exercised by the people we are lobbying. Find creative ways to communicate our message to groups interested in supporting the proposal. Search for ways that the population affected by the problem can participate and contribute its strengths to the effort. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 165

167 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Strategy Usefulness How to do it Practical advice Education and sensitivityraising in the advocacy process. Gather and share information. Make people aware of the problem and proposed solution. organizations, or sectors with similar interests, telling them about the advocacy proposal. Ensure that the core group has enough time and human, material, and technical resources available to function well. Create committees with responsibilities for a particular aspect of the campaign (e.g. fundraising, press work). Put in place mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. Find effective mechanisms to communicate with the affected population. Develop ways for the affected population to participate in the campaign. Identify individuals, groups, and/or sectors (audiences) whose sensitivity we want to raise. Set objectives and goals for education and for raising sensitivity about the problem. Develop issues and general arguments. Determine the methods that will be used to do education and sensitivity-raising. Carry out the activities. Evaluate. Do follow-up. Prioritize the target audience or audiences. Keep in mind the factors of time and resources. Make sure that the people who are planning and implementing this strategy are adequately equipped to do so. Educate and raise sensitivity with a view to generating enough social power to influence the decisionmaking process on the advocacy proposal. Be creative about finding cheap and effective ways to educate and raise sensitivity. Ask for the support of individuals and institutions with similar interests and perspectives. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 166

168 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Strategy Usefulness How to do it Practical advice Press work Place the issue on the public agenda. Build the group s credibility as a source of information. Shape public opinion that is favorable to the proposal. Place pressure on the decision-maker. Mobilization Get the attention of the press. Involve the affected population. Generate political will for lobbying and negotiation. Put pressure on the decision-maker. Define objectives for the media strategy. Target the audiences that we want to reach. Formulate the message. Analyze and prioritize different media outlets. Carry out activities that will help us gain more media access. Evaluate on an ongoing basis. Identify and prioritize those actors that we want to influence. Set objectives with a view to maximizing our power to influence. Assess our capacity to mobilize. Determine what type of mobilization is needed. Set the place, date, and schedule of the mobilization. Develop our messages. Delegate tasks. Announce the activity and invite individuals and/or groups to participate. Do advance work with the press. Communicate the results of the activity. Do follow-up. Bear in mind the characteristics of our target audience when crafting our message for the press. Think about the content, language, source, format, timing, and placement of the message. Be creative and bold to attract the attention of the press and convince them of the importance of the issues. Do intensive follow-up with specific journalists and media outlets. Offer complete and objective information in order to raise our credibility as a news source. Plan mobilizations that will increase the level of sympathy for the issue and complement other advocacy strategies. Effectively communicate the motive of the mobilization. Ensure that the mobilization is held at an appropriate time in the decision-making process and on a day and time when there will be maximum participation. Ensure that the mobilization demonstrates social power in support of the campaign and not the lack thereof. Take measures to avoid repression and violent confrontations. Keep the population interested and informed after the mobilization. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 167

169 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Step 6 Resource 2 STEP 6: DESIGN ADVOCACY STRATEGIES How can we influence the decision that is made about the proposal? PURPOSE OF THE STEP Make decisions about the strategies that will be used to influence the decision-maker and other key actors so that the proposal is approved. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 168

170 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Step 6 Resource 3 WHAT IS A STRATEGY? A set of activities carried out to accomplish an objective. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 169

171 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Step 6 Resource 4 Convince people who are undecided to be supportive? Persuade the decisionmaker to approve the proposal? CRITERIA FOR ADVOCACY STRATEGIES To what extent do they... Motivate allies to take action? Neutralize opponents? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 170

172 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 6 Step 6 Resource 5 Lobbying Organizing ADVOCACY STRATEGIES Press work Mobilization Education and sensitivity-raising WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 171

173 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 STEP 7: Develop an Activity Plan What should be done to carry out the strategies? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 172

174 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 STEP 7: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Establish the importance of planning specific activities for an advocacy initiative and their relationship to work done during previous steps. 2. Know the basic elements in planning activities. 3. Recognize the importance of preparatory tasks in planning advocacy campaigns. 4. Carry out a practice exercise in which these planning elements are applied to a particular advocacy situation. Key Concepts 1. Preparatory tasks. 2. Concrete activities to influence the decision-making space. 3. Lessons learned from experience. 1. Introduction to planning. 2. Drafting the proposal summary. 3. Menu of activities. 4. Planning in groups. 5. Socio-drama about carrying out the plan. Practical Techniques Learning Indicator The development of an organized and coherent activity plan for a particular advocacy situation, based on all the preceding steps of the planning methodology. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 173

175 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 STEP 7: KEY CONCEPTS This step comprises the activities needed to complete preparation of the advocacy campaign and then to carry out the strategies that were defined in Step 6. In general, each activity should fall in one of the following categories: Research in support of the proposal or a survey of the key actors Activities to strengthen the group or coalition that will carry out the campaign Activities that help to persuade the decision-maker and other key actors. 1. Preparatory Tasks When planning strategies and activities for an advocacy campaign, it is important to begin with tasks that will lay the groundwork for future activities. Groups frequently skip these tasks in their rush to begin the campaign and take concrete actions. Nonetheless, these tasks are important because they can determine whether or not an advocacy campaign succeeds or fails. Preparatory tasks include the following: Research to fill information gaps During the advocacy planning process it is essential that the core organizing group have access to accurate and reliable information. The group should have information in hand about the problem to be solved and its causes, the way the decision-making space functions, and the characteristics, motivations, and interests of the affected population and of key actors who can influence the decision-maker. The core group also needs an understanding of its own capacity its strengths and weaknesses in relation to the proposed initiative. Drafting the proposal summary sheet The drafting of a one-page written summary of the proposal is essential for use in presenting the proposal to the decision-maker, to key actors, and to the general public. This document should set forth concisely and coherently the position of those doing the advocacy. The process of drafting it also forces the core organizers to reach consensus and to fine-tune their arguments in support of the proposal. A proposal summary sheet is especially useful for direct visits with key actors and for press work. The proposal summary should include: A brief description of the problem to be solved The concrete proposal of the group or coalition The main arguments in favor of the proposal. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 174

176 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 The arguments should include points that speak to the proposal s feasibility and effectiveness, based on objective information and hard facts that respond in a pro-active way to the main arguments that the most influential opponents are likely to make. In general, there is only one proposal summary sheet. If the group feels it necessary, this sheet can later be tailored to different sectors of the population or to different actors. Consultation with member organizations about the plan It is difficult at times to make certain that all the member organizations of a coalition are involved in every step of the advocacy planning process. Nonetheless, when the core organizing group does not have institutional backing, internal conflicts can develop within the coalition or the campaign can lose legitimacy and grassroots support. With the goal of fine-tuning and broadening the ownership of the advocacy plan, core organizers should share the plan with the coalition s member organizations and make sure that each organization s membership or constituency has the opportunity to make suggestions and state their opinions. Everyone who participates in some way in the campaign needs to be aware of how it is unfolding to be sure that it is consistent with their interests, mission, and priorities. This will help ensure that the main planning decisions have as much institutional backing as possible. Fundraising In order to carry out an effective advocacy initiative it is important to have sufficient economic resources in hand. Many key elements of advocacy campaigns entail expenses (staff time, technical studies, advisers, photocopies, mobilizations, office equipment, and forth). If fundraising is not taken seriously from the very beginning, the lack of resources can become a limiting factor once strategies are defined. At the same time, it is a myth that advocacy is not possible without outside funding sources. If civil society organizations adopt this view, they will always be subject to the whims of international donor agencies in determining priority issues and concerns. To the extent possible, advocacy should be carried out with internal funding sources. Proposals tend to be more solid when this is the case. Preparation of the technical proposal At times it is important to accompany the one-page proposal summary with a more detailed technical proposal. For example, when an advocacy campaign seeks to introduce or reform a law, the core organizing group should prepare a draft of the law or reform for which it is seeking approval. 2. Concrete Activities to Influence the Decision-Making Space The strategies identified in Step 6 are general courses of action that the core group intends to pursue during its advocacy campaign with the participation of all the coalition s member organizations. In developing the plan for the campaign, the group should spell out specific activities to be carried out under each of the strategies selected, and indicate who will have primary responsibility for each activity. Possible activities for each of the main advocacy strategies are shown in the following table. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 175

177 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Strategy Lobbying Organizing Education and sensitivity-raising Press work Mobilization Direct visits with the decision-maker Direct visits with other key actors Assemblies Meetings Leadership workshops House-to-house visits Training Institutional strengthening Formation of coalitions Formation of work commissions Coordination meetings Research Forums Workshops Seminars Publications Videos Popular theater Home visits Artistic festivals Civic education campaigns Activities Press conferences Interviews Paid ads Visits to editorial boards Articles Letters to the editor Investigative reporting Events to cultivate relationships with journalists (breakfasts, cocktails, etc.) Strikes Marches Take-overs Vigils Sit-ins Once specific activities have been selected and the group figures out the order in which they are best carried out, the plan should be prepared in writing. The plan should specify each activity with its desired outcome, indicators, dates, the name of the person with primary responsibility for carrying it out, and the resources needed. Good analysis of the current social, economic, and political situation will be especially important in helping to figure out this step. Key questions include: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 176

178 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Which activities should come first in order to have the greatest impact? Which should come later? Which actors should be visited right away? Would it be wise to wait until later to visit certain actors? Is it important to visit the decision-maker immediately to make him or her aware of the advocacy proposal? Or would it be better to ask an ally with a lot of influence over the decision-maker to make the first visit? Should a big event be held to pressure the decision-maker and get press attention? Or is the problem already on the public agenda? What can we do to take advantage of the strengths of the core group organizing the advocacy campaign and of opportunities present in the political environment? There are many ways to design an advocacy plan. The core group should figure out what makes the most sense operationally for its particular advocacy campaign. One example of a functional design follows, including both preparatory activities and activities to implement a particular strategy. ACTIVITY PLAN Activity Desired outcome Indicators Responsible person Date Resources 3. Lessons Learned from Experience The core group that is planning the advocacy campaign should be small but representative of the organizations involved in the process. The definition of quantitative and qualitative indicators for the desired outcomes of each activity provides a basis for evaluating the results of the activity and, eventually, the impact of the advocacy campaign. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 177

179 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Even though the person (or persons) with primary responsibility for each activity is designated in the activity plan, it is a good idea to form work commissions with defined functions. The dates for the specific activities planned to implement each strategy should have a logical sequence. The advocacy plan should fit coherently within the overall work of the institution. This is especially important in the case of coalitions. Leaders, board members, and representatives of the grassroots membership should participate in planning in order to ensure institutional backing for the advocacy campaign. The plan should be put in writing, and this document should be widely shared within the core group or coalition as a guide for all involved in the advocacy initiative. Some groups go through a planning process but never put their plan in writing. Other groups write out a plan, but fail to share it with all those involved so that everyone knows what is going to happen and how they will be involved in the implementation. This can cause confusion and conflicts about who is responsible for what. In the planning of advocacy campaigns the core group should think in terms of activities that have a big impact without requiring too much dependence on external funding sources. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 178

180 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 STEP 7: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING To reflect on the importance of planning activities within advocacy initiatives and the essential elements to work through during the planning. Use This is an easy and participatory way to introduce the concept of planning and its usefulness in advocacy work, giving examples from real life. Process 1. The facilitator asks the group: What does it mean to plan? How is planning helpful? The facilitator asks the participants to mention times in their lives when they had to plan. Drawing on these examples, the participants share ideas about the usefulness of planning. 2. Next, the following questions are used to start a discussion about planning advocacy initiatives, recognizing the need to plan but also the effort it implies: Why do we plan our advocacy initiatives? What might happen if we do not plan before we act? What effort is implied in planning? The facilitator records the responses on a sheet of newsprint. 3. The facilitator asks for six volunteers and gives each one a card. The following questions are written on the cards, but are not in any particular order: What activity are we going to do? Why are we going to do it? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 179

181 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 How are we going to do it? When are we going to do it? Who among us will have primary responsibility for making sure that it happens? What resources will we need? 4. The facilitator asks the group to put the questions in logical order, beginning with the one that is the highest priority. 5. The group discusses planning as an exercise in which we are always responding to questions and finding concrete ways to put our ideas into action. 6. The facilitator makes a presentation about the key concepts in Step 7, followed by a brief discussion about planning. Time 1 hour and 10 minutes in total: 20 minutes for the initial discussion 20 minutes for ordering and discussing the questions 30 minutes for the presentation and final discussion. Objectives TECHNIQUE 2: DRAFTING THE PROPOSAL SUMMARY To stress the importance of preparing a proposal summary sheet that presents the problem the group is trying to solve, the group s proposal, and the main arguments in favor of the proposal. To do a practice exercise to implement the elements from the proposal summary sheet. Use This technique is especially useful during the planning of a real advocacy initiative, but it can also be applied to a hypothetical situation as long as the group has sufficient knowledge of the arguments that would be made to persuade the decision-maker. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 180

182 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Process Time 1. The facilitator explains the main elements to be included on the proposal summary sheet and hands out Worksheet 1, Proposal Summary Sheet (Example), to the participants. 2. Three or four small groups are formed. Each small group prepares a draft of a proposal summary. 3. The small groups present their drafts in plenary. 4. The proposal summary of each small group is critiqued with regard to its precision and clarity and the arguments that it puts forth. 5. The facilitator leads a discussion aimed at reaching consensus on a proposal summary. 1 hour in total: 25 minutes in small groups 15 minutes for presentations 20 minutes for reflection and reaching consensus about the proposal summary. TECHNIQUE 3: MENU OF ACTIVITIES Objectives To visualize several important advocacy strategies. To list a menu of activities for each strategy. To generate inputs for the activity plan. Use This technique is very participatory. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 181

183 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Process 1. The facilitator recaps the five main advocacy strategies, encouraging discussion about the usefulness of each one. It is important to emphasize that the most effective advocacy initiatives tend to use multiple strategies. 2. Two or three small groups are formed, and the strategies are distributed among them. Each small group then makes a menu, or list, of the specific activities that correspond to its strategy. 3. The small groups present their lists in plenary. 4. In plenary, participants discuss the potential usefulness and disadvantages of each possible activity included on the lists. The facilitator asks the group to recall its earlier analysis of the sources of power, reminding participants that the activities adopted should enhance civil society s sources of power. Time 1 hour and 10 minutes in total: 30 minutes in small groups 25 minutes for presentations by the small groups 15 minutes for reflection and wrap-up. Objective TECHNIQUE 4: PLANNING IN GROUPS To do a planning exercise in groups, based on either a real-life or a hypothetical situation. Use This practice exercise aids in understanding the logic of planning and reinforces planning skills and habits. In a real advocacy initiative, this technique results in a plan that will later be implemented. Process 1. Three or four small groups are formed. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 182

184 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 2. One small group is assigned to plan preparatory tasks for the advocacy campaign. The five advocacy strategies are distributed among the other small groups. 3. The facilitator gives each small group a blank activity plan for each strategy it has been assigned. The facilitation team should determine which of the three possible tables used for this technique is most appropriate for use with a particular group. The basic table (Worksheets 2 and 3) is the simplest and most useful for the initial stage of planning and for training sessions based on hypothetical situations. The first variation (Worksheet 4) includes indicators for each activity, and the second variation (Worksheet 5) includes external factors and risks. If necessary, the facilitator can adapt one of the tables with additional elements. 4. Each small group makes a first attempt to plan activities corresponding to the strategies it has been assigned. 5. The small groups present their work in plenary. 6. The results of the small group work are discussed. In plenary, the plans of the small groups are fine-tuned and modified to strengthen the integrity and coherence of the overall activity plan and the feasibility of its execution. Time 1 hour and 45 minutes in total: 45 minutes for small group work 40 minutes for small group presentations 20 minutes for discussion and modification of the plans. Objective TECHNIQUE 5: SOCIO-DRAMA ABOUT CARRYING OUT THE PLAN To anticipate potential difficulties that may arise when the activity plan is executed, as well as practical ways to deal with them. Use This technique encourages participation and creativity. It should be used after the plan has been developed. It obligates the participants to ground their plan in reality before executing it, by focusing on verbal communication skills and the arguments to be made. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 183

185 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Process 1. Three or four small groups are formed. They can be the same small groups that were used during Technique Each small group prepares a socio-drama to show how it will carry out the activity plan or, at minimum, one of the strategies in the plan. Members of the small group assume the roles of those in the core group and other key actors. 3. The socio-dramas are presented in plenary. 4. The following questions are used to reflect on each of the socio-dramas in plenary: What did you observe? What aspects went well? What aspects went badly? Were the desired outcomes achieved? Why or why not? What suggestions do we have related to the execution of the plan? After all of the presentations, the facilitator does a wrap-up and summarizes the main points. 5. The small groups meet again to modify the work plan to take into account the suggestions that were made. 6. The modified plans are presented a second time. Time 1 hour and 50 minutes in total: 30 minutes in small groups to prepare the socio-dramas 50 minutes to present the socio-dramas and discuss them 15 minutes for work in small groups to improve the plans 15 minutes for the final presentations. Variation The entire group can collaborate to produce one socio-drama that covers various different aspects of the plan. In this case, participants are assigned different roles for example, core group members, the decision-maker, and influential opponents and allies. If desired, some people can be designated as observers. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 184

186 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Worksheet 1 Proposal Summary Sheet (Example) PROPOSAL TO CREATE A COMMISSION ON WOMEN S LABOR RIGHTS Discrimination in the workplace based on gender is a problem in our country that impedes the economic and social development of women. Women earn less than men (an average of US$80 per month versus $140 per month for men, according to the United Nations Development Programme). Low salaries, sexual harassment, and limited work options are some of the reasons why 80% of the women in our country live in extreme poverty. Even though laws and treaties against gender-based discrimination are on the books, there is no effective state mechanism to guarantee equitable treatment by employers. Therefore, the Alliance Against Gender Discrimination proposes that Minister of Labor Julio Méndez create a Permanent Commission on the Labor Rights of Women within the ministry by November of this year. The National Women s Institute should participate in the Permanent Commission. The commission should establish a presence in all regions of the country and should have the capacity to monitor, motivate, and sanction employers in the agricultural, financial, commercial, and service sectors. The commission should have its own budget. The creation of the Permanent Commission on the Labor Rights of Women within the Ministry of Labor will contribute to the development of our country by strengthening our labor force, improving conditions for foreign investment, and establishing democratic relationships between the state and civil society for public policy formulation and execution. The commission would also be a way to demonstrate the state s commitment to the fulfillment of the rights established in the Constitution of the Republic and in international treaties signed in the last 15 years. The creation of the commission would represent a step toward modernity in our country politically, economically, and socially. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 185

187 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Worksheet 2 Activity Plan Strategy: Activity Desired outcome Responsible person Date Resources WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 186

188 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Worksheet 3 Activity Plan (Example) Strategy: Lobbying Activity Desired outcome Responsible person Date Resources Meeting with María Flores from the National Women s Institute Institutional backing for the proposal presented to the Ministry of Labor and a commitment from the National Women s Institute to participate in the commission and its monitoring functions. Marta Eugenia Ulloa 1 10 March Meeting with Catherine Williams of the Canadian Embassy She meets with the Minister of Labor to promote the proposal. Lucrecia García March Meeting with Gabriela Ochoa, a columnist with La Verdad newspaper She writes an article about the problem of labor discrimination and our proposal. Olga Castillo March Meeting with Julio Méndez, Minister of Labor He accepts the proposal and commits himself in writing to create the Permanent Commission on the Labor Rights of Women and to allocate it 20% of the Ministry of Labor s budget. Ana María Ruiz 1 15 April WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 187

189 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Worksheet 4 Activity Plan (Variation) Strategy: Activity Desired outcome Indicators Responsible person Date Resources WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 188

190 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Worksheet 5 Activity Plan (Variation) Strategy: Activity Desired outcome Indicators Responsible person Date External factors/risks WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 189

191 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Resource 1 STEP 7: DEVELOP AN ACTIVITY PLAN What should be done to carry out the strategies? PURPOSE OF THE STEP Define and plan specific activities that will be carried out to implement advocacy strategies. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 190

192 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Resource 2 Research activities TYPES OF ACTIVITIES Activities to convince the decision-maker or key actors Activities to strengthen the group WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 191

193 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Resource 3 PREPARATORY TASKS Consult with member organizations about the plan Raise funds Do research to fill information gaps Analyze interests and arguments Draft the proposal summary sheet Prepare the technical proposal WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 192

194 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Resource 4 LESSONS LEARNED Planning group should be small but representative. Define indicators for each activity. Create commissions and define their responsibilities. Revisit the strengths and weaknesses that have been identified. Determine the dates on which activities will occur and ensure they are in a logical sequence. Ensure institutional backing from participants. Distribute tasks among several different people. Write the plan and distribute it to member organizations. Raise the necessary resources. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 193

195 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 7 Step 7 Resource 5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN What are we going to do? Why are we going to do it? Definition of activities for each strategy How are we going to do it? When are we going to do it? With what resources? Who among us is going to do it? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 194

196 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 STEP 8: Carry Out Continuous Evaluation What has been accomplished? What has not been accomplished? Why? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 195

197 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 STEP 8: SUMMARY Learning Objectives 1. Establish the importance of continuously evaluating advocacy processes. 2. Share criteria for evaluating the planning process. 3. Share criteria for evaluating the execution of the plan. 4. Share criteria for evaluating the impact of the advocacy initiative. 5. Apply what has been learned to a particular advocacy initiative. 1. Why evaluate? 2. Evaluation of the planning process. 3. Evaluation of the plan s execution. 4. Evaluation of impact. 5. Lessons learned from experience. Key Concepts Practical Techniques 1. Introduction to evaluation. 2. Fast evaluation by core ideas. 3. Evaluation of a case study. 4. Evaluating the execution of an activity plan. 5. General evaluation of the initiative. 6. Collective evaluation of the impact of the initiative. Learning Indicators 1. The generation of criteria for the evaluation of planning processes and of the execution and impact of an advocacy initiative. 2. The evaluation of the planning, execution, and impact of a particular initiative. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 196

198 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 STEP 8: KEY CONCEPTS 1. Why Evaluate? Evaluation is a key element of any political advocacy process geared toward achieving social change. It is an attempt to learn from both successes and failures in order to strengthen the capacity to engage in advocacy on public policies and programs. Ongoing evaluation permits us to measure and verify the activities being carried out, so that advocacy efforts can be redirected if necessary. It is therefore important to evaluate on an ongoing basis, from the beginning of the planning process through the end of the campaign. 2. Evaluation of the Planning Process In evaluating the planning process, several general elements should be kept in mind: The ability of the core group in charge of the advocacy initiative to conduct quality research and manage the information that it gathers The quality of the analysis of the current political, economic, and social situation The level of participation by the affected population and by women in the planning. On a more specific level, it is important to evaluate the application of each step of the basic methodology. Key elements to be considered in the evaluation of each step are outlined below. Step 1: Identification and analysis of the problem: importance of the problem chosen for the affected population; depth of analysis of the problem; degree to which the problem relates to the mission of the organizations and individuals that are participating in the advocacy initiative. Step 2: Formulation of the proposal: contribution that the proposal will make to solving the problem; its feasibility; degree of motivation and interest that it produces; existence of clear and realistic goals. Step 3: Analysis of the decision-making space: identification of the decision-maker; the core group s knowledge of the decision-making processes; identification of the best time to launch the proposal. Step 4: Analysis of channels of influence: identification of allies, undecided persons, and opponents; prioritization of key actors with most influence over the decision-making process; analysis of interests of key actors; effective use of the information that is available about key actors. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 197

199 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 5: SWOT analysis: objectivity and depth of analysis; capacity to take concrete measures to take advantage of strengths and opportunities and overcome weaknesses and threats. Step 6: Design of advocacy strategies: variety and creativity of the strategies; their effectiveness in convincing the decision-maker. Step 7: Development of an activity plan: existence of a written plan; feasibility and coherence of the plan; identification of desired outcomes, indicators, dates, responsible persons, and resources needed for each activity; intentional distribution of responsibilities within the core group to break out of traditional roles. 3. Evaluation of the Plan s Execution The implementation of the advocacy plan should be evaluated at different times throughout the campaign so that adjustments can be made as necessary. For example, an evaluation might be done after a lobbying activity, after a mobilization, in response to a significant change in the political situation, and so forth. In addition, evaluations should be done at regular intervals monthly or quarterly and again at the end of the campaign. It is important to evaluate each activity in the plan in terms of whether or not it was completed and its results. The evaluation should always attempt to pinpoint which causes or factors contributed to an activity s success or failure, and should consider changes that could be made to make things go more smoothly and strengthen the advocacy initiative. The following table is a useful instrument for this task. EVALUATION OF THE PLAN S EXECUTION Activity Desired outcomes Actual outcome Reasons or contributing factors Necessary adjustments Comments: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 198

200 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 4. Evaluation of Impact The impact of an advocacy initiative must be evaluated on three levels corresponding to the three basic reasons to engage in advocacy, as outlined in Section 2 of the manual: to solve specific problems, to strengthen and empower civil society, and to promote and consolidate democracy. Solving specific problems through public policies On the first level, the outcomes of the advocacy initiative should be evaluated in terms of the effectiveness of the strategies and activities in convincing the decision-maker to approve the proposal. The impact of the campaign is thus measured in terms of specific changes that occur in policies, laws, programs, or behaviors. In addition, the evaluation should attempt to measure positive changes that may have occurred in the daily lives of the population affected by the problem as a result of the advocacy campaign. It is important also to evaluate other progress that may have been achieved, such as the placement of the issue on the public agenda, improvements in the knowledge and skills of the core group and member organizations of the coalition, the strengthening of new leaders, and the broadening of alliances. This aspect of the evaluation depends on the early identification, from the very beginning of the planning process, of secondary goals that contribute to the accomplishment of the advocacy objective. Strengthening and empowering civil society The impact at the level of civil society refers to the strengthening of the core group organizing the advocacy campaign and the member organizations of the coalition. Strengthening these groups will enable them, together with other actors, to defend the changes that have been won and to carry out new advocacy initiatives that are even more ambitious. This aspect of the evaluation should consider the progress made in legalizing or legitimizing the coalition; knowledge acquired about the functioning of the state and about specific laws; the capacity to formulate proposals; new alliances; the definition of structures within the coalition; the integration of more people to broaden the social base of advocacy; and the organization and incorporation of the population affected by the problem being addressed. The core group that is organizing the initiative should include women and people from different racial-ethnic groups, as well as members of the affected population. For example, when an advocacy initiative is proposing a change in employment policies, young women and men should be members of the core group. Promoting and consolidating democracy On the third level, accomplishments and failures should be evaluated in terms of their consequences for democratization. The evaluation should examine the extent to which democratic processes and mechanisms were built and consolidated within the core group and the coalition. With respect to the larger society, it should look at whether transparency was increased in the political system of the country, and whether new WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 199

201 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 opportunities were created for citizen participation in state decision-making. There is also a need to evaluate whether or not accountability mechanisms were put in place, state power was decentralized, and citizens achieved more access to government information. Finally, impact is measured in terms of the strengthening of state institutions. 5. Lessons Learned from Experience Depending on the characteristics of the core group and the rhythm of the advocacy work, it is important to collectively decide which evaluation mechanisms will be used and how frequently. It is important to evaluate each activity of an advocacy campaign immediately after it happens. It is important to figure out the reasons why the objectives and desired outcomes of an advocacy initiative either were or were not fulfilled. The reasons may have to do with dynamics within the coalition or organization that undertook the initiative, or they may be external to it. It is not enough to know that something did or did not happen; one should also know why. It is important to recognize and celebrate accomplishments as a way to motivate the core group and the entire coalition. Evaluation does not just highlight negatives; it also helps to highlight those places where progress has been made. At the beginning of the planning process, the core group should develop its own indicators for each of the three levels of impact. The indicators should be very specific and measurable and should help to gauge whether or not the desired outcome has been achieved. When advocacy initiatives are evaluated it is important to apply both qualitative and quantitative indicators. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 200

202 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 STEP 8: PRACTICAL TECHNIQUES Objective TECHNIQUE 1: INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION To start a discussion about the importance of evaluation and the different aspects of an advocacy initiative that should be evaluated. Use This technique introduces the basic concept of evaluation without necessarily requiring a real evaluation of a planning process or of the execution or impact of an advocacy campaign. Process 1. Each participant is given a card of one of three colors. According to the color of their card, each participant answers one of the following questions: Why evaluate an advocacy process? What aspects should be evaluated? When should they be evaluated? 2. The participants hang up their cards on the wall or on the blackboard under the corresponding question. 3. The ideas on the cards are discussed, and new ones are added. 4. The facilitator makes a brief presentation with sheets of newsprint, cards, or transparencies about the importance of evaluating the planning process, the execution of the plan, and the impact of the advocacy initiative. Time 45 minutes in total: 10 minutes for brainstorming 20 minutes for discussion WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 201

203 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 15 minutes for the presentation. Objective TECHNIQUE 2: FAST EVALUATION BY CORE IDEAS To evaluate an advocacy planning process step-by-step, around selected core ideas, in a fast-paced, visual, and participatory way. Use This technique gives an overview of the advocacy planning process, highlighting general tendencies and common successes and problems. Since it is used to introduce evaluation, it does not identify causes or come up with possible solutions. Process 1. The facilitator asks the group: What are the most important things to keep in mind when we evaluate our advocacy planning process? The facilitator writes the participants ideas on a sheet of newsprint. After listening to several ideas, s/he tries to synthesize them and to help the group reach a consensus on the three or four core ideas that are most important. If it is not possible to trim down the long list of ideas, each person can come forward and vote individually for the idea that s/he considers to be most important, placing a symbol or mark by that idea on the newsprint. 2. Three small groups of participants are formed to fill out Worksheet 1 ( Table for Initial Evaluation of the Planning Process, by Steps and Core Ideas ). The facilitator may wish to adapt the table based on the core ideas selected by the group. Each step of the planning process is rated on a scale of 1 to 10, reflecting the group s evaluation of how the step was performed with respect to the core idea. A 1 represents the poorest evaluation, and a 10 is an excellent evaluation. The totals are added up for each step and each core idea. 3. The small groups present their conclusions in plenary. 4. The facilitator stimulates a discussion about the evaluations that have been presented, highlighting similarities and differences in the viewpoints of the small groups. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 202

204 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 5. The facilitator asks the group the following questions in order to pinpoint successes and failures and their causes: At what point was our planning most effective? Why? At what point did we have the most difficulties? Why? What have been our weaknesses during the planning process? What can we do to improve our capacity to do advocacy planning? 6. The facilitator summarizes the points made by the participants and asks them to name concrete actions that could be taken to address difficulties or weaknesses. Note: The formation of the small groups is critical to the success of this exercise. At times, putting men and women in separate groups can serve to highlight different points of view. Then the group can discuss the differences in plenary. Time 1 hour and 30 minutes in total: 15 minutes to generate core ideas 30 minutes in small groups 45 minutes for discussion in plenary. Objective TECHNIQUE 3: EVALUATION OF A CASE STUDY To evaluate a real advocacy planning process. Use This technique can be applied to a real process with which the participants are familiar, or to a case study that is available in written form. If a case study is used, it should preferably be one that relates to the political context in which the participants live, and for which there are extensive data. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 203

205 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Process 1. Three small groups are formed. If a written case study is to be used, copies should be given to the small groups to read. 2. Worksheet 3 ( Table for Evaluation of the Planning Process, Step-by-Step ) is passed out to the small groups. The groups answer the questions in the table, describing the facts (what happened) and commenting on them. 3. The small groups present the conclusions of their work in plenary. 4. In plenary, the participants discuss the analysis that has been done by the small groups, attempting to isolate the causes and effects of difficulties where they occurred. The facilitator shares a reflection on the advantages and difficulties of evaluating advocacy processes. Time 1 hour and 50 minutes in total: 1 hour to fill out the table in small groups 30 minutes for presentations 20 minutes for the final discussion. Note: If the participants are going to read the case studies, then more time needs to be allotted for the work in small groups. Objective TECHNIQUE 4: EVALUATING THE EXECUTION OF AN ACTIVITY PLAN To evaluate the execution of an activity plan, activity by activity. Use This technique can be used to evaluate an activity plan after it has been carried out or to do ongoing evaluation during an advocacy process. In the latter case the technique enables mid-course adjustments to be made. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 204

206 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Process 1. Three to five small groups are formed. Each evaluates one aspect of the activity plan that was developed previously. 2. The small groups fill out Worksheet 5 ( Table for Evaluation and Follow-up of an Activity Plan ). The first two columns, on planned activities and desired outcomes, come directly from the original activity plan. The rest of the columns refer to what happened during implementation of the plan and recommended changes for the future. 3. The small groups present their conclusions in plenary. 4. The participants are invited to comment on the conclusions of the small groups and on the proposed adjustments to the plan in a plenary discussion. The facilitator tries to help the group reach consensus about the adjustments that will be made in the plan. Time 2 hours in total: 1 hour in small groups 30 minutes for the presentations in plenary 30 minutes of discussion and consensus. Objective TECHNIQUE 5: GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE INITIATIVE To start a discussion about the success of an advocacy initiative. Use This technique allows participants to evaluate the initiative in a general and simple way, examining accomplishments and difficulties within the overall advocacy experience. It is a participatory technique that can be used by groups that lack literacy skills and would have difficulty filling out tables. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 205

207 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Process 1. The facilitator asks the group the following questions: Was the proposal approved? Why or why not? What were the external causes of the success or failure? What were the internal causes of the success or failure? 2. The group engages in discussion of the advocacy process, guided by the four questions. The facilitator helps the group uncover the roots of any difficulties that were experienced, with a view to proposing new activities to address them. Time 1 to 2 hours, depending on the situation. TECHNIQUE 6: COLLECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE Objective To evaluate the impact of an advocacy initiative based on previously established criteria. Use This is a visual and participatory evaluation that uses criteria defined by the group. Process 1. The facilitator stimulates discussion with the following question: What criteria can we use to measure the impact of an advocacy initiative? The responses are written on a sheet of newsprint. The participants then attempt to narrow the list to four or five criteria for each of the three levels of impact that were mentioned in the key concepts for Step 8. Each criterion is written on a card. 2. The facilitator presents Worksheet 6 ( Table for Evaluating the Impact of Advocacy by Criteria ) on a sheet of newsprint. The cards are placed in the Criteria column on the table. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 206

208 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 3. Each participant comes forward and writes an x with a marker beside each criterion in one of the two right-hand columns, to show that the advocacy had either a little impact or a lot of impact with respect to that criterion (see Worksheet 7 for an example of a completed table). 4. The results of this exercise are discussed using the following questions: At what level have we been able to have an impact? At what level have we had little impact? At what level is there disagreement? 5. In plenary, the group examines the criteria one by one, discussing why people voted the way they did and listening to different arguments from within the group. Time 2 hours in total: 30 minutes to set and fine-tune criteria 90 minutes to record opinions and discuss the results. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 207

209 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 1 Table for Initial Evaluation of the Planning Process, by Steps and Core Ideas Instructions: Write a number from 1 to 10 to evaluate the way that each step was carried out with respect to the core idea. 1 represents a very poor evaluation and 10 represents an excellent evaluation. Add up the totals for each step and each core idea. Core ideas Step Quality of research and information management Quality of analysis of current situation Level of participation by the affected population Level of participation by women Total points 1. Identification and analysis of problem 2. Formulation of proposal 3. Analysis of decisionmaking space 4. Analysis of channels of influence 5. SWOT analysis 6. Design of advocacy strategies 7. Development of activity plan Total points WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 208

210 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 2 Table for Initial Evaluation of the Planning Process, by Steps and Core Ideas (Example) Instructions: Write a number from 1 to 10 to evaluate the way that each step was carried out with respect to the core idea. 1 represents a very poor evaluation and 10 represents an excellent evaluation. Add up the totals for each step and each core idea. Core ideas Step Quality of research and information management Quality of analysis of current situation Level of participation by the affected population and by women Total points 1. Identification and analysis of problem Formulation of proposal Analysis of decisionmaking space Analysis of channels of influence SWOT analysis Design of advocacy strategies Development of activity plan Total points WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 209

211 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 3 Table for Evaluation of the Planning Process, Step by Step QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Step 1: Identification and analysis of the problem Was in-depth analysis of the problem carried out? Is the problem experienced by many people? Is the problem related to our mission? Step 2: Formulation of the proposal Was there good analysis of the way the proposal would help solve the problem? Was our proposal feasible? Was our proposal motivating and one that people could unite behind? Did we promote institutional and cultural changes? Did we set clear and realistic goals? Did we modify the proposal when it was necessary without losing the essence of its content? Step 3: Analysis of the decisionmaking space Did we identify the decision-maker correctly? Did we understand the institutional processes for decision-making? Did we take into account the informal decision-making processes? Did we identify the best moments to influence the decision? Did we properly manage information about the decision-making space? Step 4: Analysis of channels of influence Did we accurately prioritize the actors WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 210

212 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 with the most influence? QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Did we get concrete support from important allies? Did we successfully neutralize the impact of opponents? Were we able to convince the undecided persons? Were we able to fill information gaps? Step 5: SWOT analysis Did we correctly identify our main strengths and weaknesses with respect to the initiative? Did people and groups identify with the proposal? Did we make the most of our strengths? Were we able to limit the impact of our weaknesses? Did we correctly identify opportunities and threats and find ways to take advantage of or overcome them? Step 6: Design of advocacy strategies Were the strategies used effective? Did we use a variety of strategies? Did we effectively implement education and sensitivity-raising as a strategy? Did the affected population participate in carrying out the strategies? Did we do a good job with the press? Step 7: Development of an activity plan Did we do what we set out to do? Was our plan clear and realistic? Did we break out of traditional roles in the distribution of responsibilities? Did we modify our plan when necessary? Step 8: Continuous evaluation WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 211

213 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Did we do evaluation throughout the process? Did we do evaluation at key moments in the process? Did we incorporate the conclusions of the evaluations in our actions? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 212

214 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 4 Table for Evaluation of the Planning Process, Step by Step (Example) QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Step 1: Identification and analysis of the problem Was in-depth analysis of the problem carried out? Is the problem experienced by many people? Is the problem related to our mission? Step 2: Formulation of the proposal Was there good analysis of the way the proposal would help solve the problem? Was our proposal feasible? Was our proposal motivating and one that people could unite behind? Did we promote institutional and cultural changes? Did we set clear and realistic goals? Did we modify the proposal when it was necessary without losing the essence of its content? Step 3: Analysis of the decisionmaking space Did we identify the decision-maker correctly? Did we understand the institutional processes for decision-making? Did we take into account the informal decision-making processes? Did we identify the best moments to influence the decision? Did we properly manage information about the decision-making space? In-depth analysis of the problem was done from different points of view. It is a problem that affects half of the population in a significant way. The initiative was built around the mission. The proposal was very specific and directly related to the problem. We tried to bring about institutional changes in the Ministry of Labor, involving civil society in the planning and monitoring. The proposal was not very understandable and therefore did not motivate very many people. We had to modify the proposal a bit because the Ministry of Labor had little institutional capacity. We identified the decision-maker correctly, but it was difficult for us to understand the institutional and personal factors that influenced his decisions. The processes were very technical and it was difficult for us to get clear answers. We were under a lot of time pressure because the time frame for making the decision was moved up. We were not able to get the proposal approved in its entirety The problem of gender discrimination runs very deep and therefore will not be solved with just one initiative. We became aware that the Ministry of Labor is very weak, with a low budget, little vision, and limited national coverage. We obtained information about formal decisionmaking processes, but in practice they were not used to make decisions. Institutional decisions were unjust and were based on personal interests. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 213

215 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Step 4: Analysis of channels of influence Did we accurately prioritize the actors with the most influence? Did we get concrete support from important allies? Did we successfully neutralize the impact of opponents? Were we able to convince the undecided persons? Were we able to fill information gaps? Step 5: SWOT analysis Did we correctly identify our main strengths and weaknesses with respect to the initiative? Did people and groups identify with the proposal? Did we make the most of our strengths? Were we able to limit the impact of our weaknesses? Did we correctly identify opportunities and threats and find ways to take advantage of or overcome them? Step 6: Design of advocacy strategies Were the strategies used effective? Did we use a variety of strategies? Did we effectively implement education and sensitivity-raising as a strategy? Did the affected population participate in carrying out the strategies? Did we do a good job with the press? Step 7: Development of an activity plan because of a lack of sufficient social pressure. In general, we did properly identify those people with the most influence. We did get support from allies, but it was difficult for us to neutralize opponents. Including undecided persons was critical, even though it modified the focus of the proposal. We correctly identified our own strengths and weaknesses. We underestimated the importance of the relationship with key actors. We were able to improve our relationships with key actors, but the lack of communication and democracy within our coalition was a problem. The strategies were effective, but we did not always involve the affected population; this put the validity of the proposal at risk. We did not adequately prepare our press strategy and had to do it on the fly. In general, we fulfilled our plan but many of the desired outcomes were It was difficult for us to get precise information about the key actors. Relationships with key actors helped us generate more pressure and put the issue on the table with the support of the press. The activities were well sequenced. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 214

216 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 QUESTIONS FACTS COMMENTS Did we do what we set out to do? Was our plan clear and realistic? Did we break out of traditional roles in the distribution of responsibilities? Did we modify our plan when necessary? Step 8: Continuous evaluation Did we do evaluation throughout the process? Did we do evaluation at key moments in the process? Did we incorporate the conclusions of the evaluations in our actions? only partially accomplished. There was quite a bit of women s participation. Nonetheless, there was not as much participation by grassroots or rural women. Disagreements occurred because of the different interests of the members of the coalition, but we worked in a coordinated way. We had to modify the proposal so that it would be more feasible. We implemented it in a more moderated way. We did not do very systematic evaluations, even though we did carry them out at important moments in the advocacy process. We changed our focus based on the evaluations. We did not realistically assess the fact that we had very little time and few resources available to execute the plan. The mechanism for evaluation was not very clear. The evaluations were not always participatory. There was a lack of clarity about who was going to participate in the evaluations and at what level the impact would be evaluated. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 215

217 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 5 Table for Evaluation and Follow-up of the Activity Plan Planned activity Desired outcomes Actual outcomes Reasons why completed or not Necessary adjustments General comments: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 216

218 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 6 Table for Evaluating the Impact of Advocacy, by Criteria Instructions: Record the value given to each of the criteria by marking an X on the appropriate line. Level of impact Criterion - A little - + A lot + 1. Solving specific problems through public policies 2. Strengthening and empowering civil society 3. Promoting and consolidating democracy WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 217

219 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Worksheet 7 Table for Evaluating the Impact of Advocacy by Criteria (Example) Level of impact Criterion - A little - + A lot + 1. Solving specific problems through public policies Approval of the proposal XXXX XXXXXXXX Application or implementation of the proposal XXXX XXXXXXXX Public discussion of the issue XXXX XXXXXXXX Issue put on the agenda XXXX XXXXXXXX Government plans take into account the affected population XXXX XXXXXXXX Progress in solving the problem XXXX XXXXXXXX Legalization of the group or coalition XXXXXXX XXXXXXX 2. Strengthening and empowering civil society Greater knowledge about the way the state functions XXXX XXXXXXXX Capacity to generate proposals XXXX New nontraditional allies XXXX XXXXXXXXX Ability to do social auditing of public policies and programs XXXX XXXXXXXXX Greater credibility XXX XXXXXXXXX Sensitivity raised about the issue Formation of sustainable alliances XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Empowerment at the local level XXXXX XXXXXXXXX Participation of sectors that have little representation XXXX WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 218

220 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Level of impact Criterion - A little - + A lot + Establishment of other mechanisms for state-civil society interaction XXXX XXXXXXXX 3. Promoting and consolidating democracy Generation of mechanisms for social auditing XXXX XXXXXXXX Sensitivity of government officials raised XXXX XXXXXXXX Power of local communities increased XXXXX XXXXXXX Greater transparency in the way that institutions function XX XXXXXXXXX X Gained allies within the government XXXXXX XXXXXX Exercise of citizen s rights XXXXX XXXXXXX Strengthening the way state institutions function XXXX XXXXXXXX WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 219

221 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 1 STEP 8: CARRY OUT CONTINUOUS EVALUATION What has been accomplished and what has not been accomplished? PURPOSE OF THE STEP Identify what was and was not done well. In each instance explain why, and what lessons have been learned by the core group. What were the errors and obstacles that caused negative results? What were the successful experiences? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 220

222 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 2 The planning process for the initiative EVALUATION IS DONE ON 3 LEVELS The execution of strategies and activities The impact of the initiative WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 221

223 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 3 EVALUATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS KEEP IN MIND THE... Quality of research and information management Level of participation by the affected population Quality of analysis of the current situation WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 222

224 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 4 EVALUATE THE APPLICATION OF EACH STEP STEP 1 Identification and analysis of the problem STEP 2 Formulation of the proposal STEP 3 Analysis of the decision-making space STEP 4 Analysis of channels of influence STEP 5 Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) STEP 6 STEP 7 Design of influence strategies Development of an activity plan WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 223

225 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 5 EVALUATION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN Achievement of desired outcomes Reasons for the completion or lack of completion of each activity Accomplishment of indicators Needed adjustments made in the plan WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 224

226 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 6 Solving specific problems through public policies EVALUATION OF IMPACT Strengthening and empowering the core group and civil society as a whole Promoting and consolidating democracy WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 225

227 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 3 STEP 8 Step 8 Resource 7 Collectively define timely evaluation mechanisms. Recognize and celebrate accomplishments. LESSONS LEARNED Identify internal and external reasons why outcomes were accomplished or not. Develop indicators for the three levels of impact. Apply quantitative and qualitative indicators. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 226

228 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 Section Four: Appendixes WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 227

229 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1: PRACTICAL TIPS ON HOW TO FACILITATE TRAINING SESSIONS Preparation is the secret to success in facilitating advocacy workshops. Events that are well planned tend to produce better results in terms of learning and the motivation of the participants. To better prepare your advocacy workshops, it is important to know your audience in terms of their previous experiences on the issue, level of knowledge and skills, level of interest in politics, motivations, and expectations. There also needs to be clarity and precision about how the workshop will be organized. This helps the facilitator earn the trust of participants and keep things on track at critical moments. Three key steps in preparation are an interview or diagnostic survey of the group; preparation of the methodological guide; and preparation of the agenda. Interview/Diagnostic Survey of the Group Before every advocacy session with a new group, it is important to interview those persons who are responsible for the group in order to have a clear idea of who will be participating and how many people are expected. Normally, the group should not exceed 25. The facilitator should take into consideration the group s level of preparation, the objective or expected results of the workshop, and, when possible, the specific problem that the group wants to solve or that can be used to learn about the methodology. This diagnostic survey can be oral, but it is preferable to do it in writing using a form that has been prepared in advance. It is also important to answer logistical questions. For example, where is the event going to take place? Who will be responsible for bringing needed materials (newsprint, markers, masking tape, and so on)? Preparation of the Methodological Guide The methodological guide is an instrument used for the orderly planning of educational and organizing sessions so that they accomplish concrete objectives. Even though a facilitator may be very experienced and knowledgeable about the issue to be discussed, it is important to use such a guide. It helps to: Define the specific steps needed to achieve the objectives of the session Ensure that the steps to be followed are in a logical sequence WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 228

230 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 1 Clarify what is to be accomplished with each step or technique Select appropriate techniques for each step Anticipate specific activities that will take place during the development of each technique Identify the resources or materials needed for each step Distribute the available time among the different steps Plan a dynamic, hands-on, effective process that avoids repeating the same techniques and learning exercises Create a template for the facilitation of similar events in the future Prepare minutes or a report for each activity Facilitate fluid communication within the facilitation team. In the development of a methodological guide one should keep in mind the following elements: What is the main topic of the session? What are our general and specific objectives for the session? What subtopics will be dealt with during the session? For each subtopic that will be dealt with during the session, the following must be considered: What do we want to accomplish? What technique will be used to deal with the topic? What resources will be used to do this? How much time is needed? Who from the team is going to facilitate it? The methodological guide has both a vertical and horizontal logic. The vertical logic refers to the ordering of subtopics from the beginning until the end of the event. The horizontal logic refers to the development of each subtopic during the event. The following table serves as an example. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 229

231 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 1 Main topic (title of the event): General objective: Specific objectives: Subtopics: Number of participants: Allotted time: TOPIC OBJECTIVE TECHNIQUE PROCESS RESOURCES TIME WHO What topic should we address? What do we want to accomplish with this topic? What technique are we going to use? How are we going to deal with it? What resources will be used to do this? How much time do we need? Who from the team is going to facilitate it? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 230

232 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 1 Preparation of the Agenda As a final point, it is important to prepare an agenda that shows the chronology of the workshop activities. This document should be distributed several days before the event and again at the beginning of the workshop, discussing its content and daily schedule with the participants. A sample agenda follows. DAY ONE: ADVOCACY: A TOOL FOR CHANGE PROPOSED AGENDA FOR THE METHODOLOGICAL WORKSHOP FOR LA CONCERTACIÓN CIUDADANA May 18 19, :30 am Presentation of the participants / workshop objectives 9:30 am Introduction to advocacy (PLENARY) 10:30 am Break a. What is advocacy? b. Advocacy experiences of the group 10:45 am Introduction of the basic methodology for the planning of advocacy campaigns (PLENARY) a. The four logical questions b. The eight steps of the methodology 11:30 am STEP 1: Identify and analyze the problem (WORK IN SMALL GROUPS) 1:00 pm Lunch 2:00 pm STEP 2: Formulate the proposal (WORK IN SMALL GROUPS) 3:00 pm Break a. What do we want? b. Who has the decision-making power? c. When do we want it? 3:15 pm STEP 3: Analyze the decision-making space (PLENARY) a. Who exactly has decision-making power with regard to the proposal? b. How will the decision be made? 4:00 pm STEP 4: Analyze channels of influence (WORK IN SMALL GROUPS) WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 231

233 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 1 a. Allies b. Undecided persons c. Opponents 5:00 pm Evaluation/wrap-up for the day DAY TWO: 8:30 am Summary of the previous day s work 9:00 am STEP 5: Do a SWOT analysis (WORK IN SMALL GROUPS) a. Strengths and weaknesses (self-analysis) b. Opportunities and threats c. Solutions 9:45 am STEP 6: Design advocacy strategies (PLENARY) 10:15 am Break Laying the groundwork 1. Filling information gaps 2. Analysis of interests and preparation of arguments 3. Preparation of the proposal sheet 4. Institutional approval of the advocacy plan 5. Fundraising 10:30 am Continuation of advocacy strategies: analysis of interests and proposal sheet practice (WORK IN SMALL GROUPS) 11:30 am Continuation of advocacy strategies: Exerting influence on the decision-making space (PLENARY) 12:30 pm Lunch 1. Lobbying 2. Organizing 3. Education and sensitivity-raising 4. Press work 5. Mobilization 1:30 pm STEP 7: Develop an activity plan (PLENARY) 3:30 pm Break 3:45 pm STEP 8: Carry out continuous evaluation 4:45 pm Evaluation of the workshop/wrap-up of the event WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 232

234 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 2: PREPARATION OF MINUTES Frequently the preparation of minutes of educational or organizational activities is considered a tedious, technical, and unpleasant task, or something that is only done because of pressure from a funding agency. Nonetheless, in advocacy training or in the facilitation of advocacy processes, minutes are part of the learning process, together with the event itself. Generally, minutes are a conceptual and methodological replay of an activity that highlights the steps, content, discussion, and main conclusions. This provides a written record of the most important moments during an activity. In this sense, minutes: Remind us of the conclusions and points of agreement from an activity Reinforce participants learning Provide, in writing, an in-depth description of the issues that were raised during the activity, the information that was shared, concepts, discussions, and comments Contribute to the development of theory about specific issues Generate methodological inputs for work on issues Contain raw material that can be used to systematize different experiences. Elements to Include In general, the minutes should include the: Issue and the objectives (general and specific) of the activity Date and the place where the activity took place Duration of the activity Number of the activity, if it is part of a series (for example, Workshop 2 of a series of four workshops about advocacy) Basic information about each participant: Name, postal address, and address WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 233

235 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 2 Name of the group that s/he represents His/her title within the group or organization Basic information about the facilitation team Description of each part of the activity, with its: Objective Description of how it was accomplished (technique and process) Conclusions and main accomplishments Appendixes of materials used or other complementary information. Suggestions for the Preparation of Minutes Prepare the minutes in the language of the participants so that they can use them in their own learning and organizational process. For the same reason, the minutes should be drafted using clear and simple language. The goal is for people from the group to appropriate the methodology for their own use. The hope is that this methodology will enable people to take their own initiatives to improve their lives and prospects for the future. Do not let too much time elapse between the end of the event and the preparation of the minutes. This is especially important when a school or series of workshops or seminars is held. The minutes of the last workshop should be distributed before the next workshop begins. Schedule time for preparation of the minutes. Many facilitators are prone to fill up their time with lots of activities without setting aside time for follow-up and preparation of minutes. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 234

236 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 3: GROUP EXERCISES This appendix offers group techniques and exercises that can be used during participatory training sessions and workshops. There are techniques and exercises for: Motivation and animation of participants Group introductions Formation of small groups Analysis Consciousness-raising and organization Evaluation of activities The facilitator can use these tools in conjunction with a number of different activities, independent of the topic, to encourage active participation in the workshop. Objectives A. ANIMATION TECHNIQUES To build trust within the group as it addresses issues during the activity. To encourage people to participate, wake up, be entertained, and relax so that they will be better able to address issues in-depth. A.1 Mail Call Use This exercise, in which participants must change places, allows for movement, creativity, and spontaneity. It is best used with groups of 8 to 20 people. Process 1. The participants sit in chairs arranged in a circle. 2. One person stands in the middle of the circle and says, I have a letter for all those people who... indicating a characteristic of some of the people who are seated. The people who have that characteristic must change chairs. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 235

237 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 3. The person directing the activity sits in an empty chair and the person who ends up in the middle without a chair assumes his/her role. 4. For example, someone might say: I have a letter for all those people who are wearing brown shoes, or who came from far away, or who are wearing a wrist watch. A.2 The People Say... Use This exercise gets people to move around and think quickly. It can be used with small and large groups. Process 1. The facilitator leads the activity, inviting everyone to stand up. The participants are told that they should imitate the movements of the facilitator only when s/he begins with the words: The people say This will test the group s listening skills. For example, the facilitator says: The people say raise your arms. (Arms are raised.) Then: The people say squat down. (Everyone squats down.) Then: Stand up. 2. The participants who imitate the movement when the facilitator does not begin The people say... are eliminated from the game. The facilitator should speak and act quickly to keep the participants on their toes. 3. The game continues until people get tired or until all but one person has been eliminated. A.3 The People Ask for... Use This is a lively exercise that requires movement, spontaneity, and group work. It is quite physical and requires a lot of space. Process 1. The facilitator quickly divides the group into two teams. 2. The facilitator stands in the middle of the room. One team stands at one end of the room and the other team at the other end. 3. The facilitator explains that s/he will be asking for different objects and that the team that brings them to her first will receive one point. The first team to accumulate 5 points wins (or 10 points if there is more time to play). Before saying the name of the object, the facilitator always should use the phrase, The people ask for... and hold out both arms, with one arm extending toward each team. To win the point, team members should put the object directly in the facilitator s hand. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 236

238 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 4. It is recommended that the facilitator ask for objects to which both teams have the same access and that are easily found in the room, such as a marker, a shoe, a key, a book, or a ring. Objectives B. TECHNIQUES FOR GROUP INTRODUCTIONS To get acquainted with one another and build trust within the group by focusing on the characteristics of each participant. To allow the participants to articulate their expectations with respect to the activity. B.1 Past, Present, and Future Use This exercise serves as a way to do introductions within a group with a certain level of intimacy in order to build trust among the participants. It is especially useful for small groups or among people who already know one another. Process 1. Participants are asked to think of three objects, one that represents their past, one that represents their present, and another that represents their future. They can use common objects that are found inside and outside of the room. 2. Each person then introduces himself or herself using the three objects, explaining why s/he chose those objects and what they represent in her/his life. For example, someone might say: I chose a rock for my past because I have lived through some hard times. This marker represents my present because I am facilitating lots of workshops to help organize my community. This plant represents my hopes for the future because I hope to sow knowledge in other people. B.2 The Spiderweb Use This exercise serves to illustrate, in a lively way, the interrelationships between participants and the important role that each person plays in the collective process. In addition to introductions, this technique can also be used to get participants to state their expectations for or to evaluate an activity. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 237

239 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 Process 1. Everyone stands in a circle and the facilitator gives a ball of yarn to one of the participants, explaining that each person is going to have a turn to say his or her name, home town or region, and hopes for the workshop. After introducing him/herself, each participant throws the ball of yarn to another person on the other side of the circle while holding on to the piece of yarn that s/he has. When everyone in the circle has introduced themselves, something resembling a spiderweb will have been formed. 2. While still in the circle, the facilitator leads a reflection about the importance of every person in a group, using the spiderweb as a metaphor. Each thread in a spiderweb is important. Thus, during the training session or during the planning process, everyone needs to participate and we need to help one another so that together we will be stronger. 3. To undo the spiderweb and reform the ball of yarn, the facilitator can ask another question. As each person answers it, s/he throws the ball to the person who originally threw it to him/her. B.3 To Do, to Know, and to Be Use This exercise allows people to express their personal expectations for the activity in terms of skills, knowledge, and values. Process 1. Three cards of different colors are distributed to each participant. 2. The facilitator explains that participants will write one phrase on each card and fill in the blanks. The following phrases are written on a sheet of newsprint and placed in the front of the room: At the end of the workshop or training session I would like to... Be able to do... Know more about... Be Each participant comes forward, reads his or her answer aloud, and hangs the card on the sheet of newsprint under its corresponding question. Another option is to have everyone come hang up their cards simultaneously. Then the facilitator reads aloud the ideas on the cards. This option is faster, less participatory, and more anonymous. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 238

240 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 4. The facilitator explains the three types of expectations: capacities or skills, knowledge, and values (a person s way of being ). 5. To close, the facilitator summarizes the group s expectations, pointing out commonalties and grouping similar ideas together on a sheet of newsprint. 6. The list of expectations should be posted in a place where it is visible throughout the event. The fulfillment of the expectations can be a criterion for the final evaluation of the activity. B.4 Animal Introductions Use This exercise is a lively way for people to introduce themselves. Process 1. The facilitator instructs each person in the group to think of an animal that most characterizes him or her, and to begin to act like that animal. 2. When people are imitating their animals, they should seek out other people that are imitating the same animal or an animal similar to theirs and form a pair. 3. In pairs, the participants interview one another, asking one another s name, where they live, expectations, experience with the topic of the workshop, and other questions that the facilitator suggests. 4. Then, in plenary, each person introduces the person that they interviewed to the group. B.5 Introductions with Drawings Use Individual introductions are made using a creative graphic representation. This exercise is effective with people who are not in the habit of writing. It is recommended that this technique not be used in groups of more than 20 people in order to avoid long introductions. Process 1. The facilitator hands out blank sheets of paper to all f the participants and asks them to draw something that represents them. The drawing can be a symbol, a plant, an animal, or anything that a person wants to draw. 2. Then, in plenary, each person presents and explains his or her drawing. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 239

241 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 3. Another option is to open a space for discussion and to encourage people to try to interpret one another s drawings before they are explained to the group. B.6 Reflection about Images Use This exercise stimulates the sharing of characteristics of personal identity. It can help to increase the level of trust in a group where people already know one another. Process 1. To prepare, the facilitator selects a broad variety of images from postcards, magazines, and newspapers. The number of images should be at least double the number of participants. 2. The images are placed on a table and the participants are invited to look at them in silence and then select one image that best characterizes them or most interests them. 3. After all the participants have selected images, each person introduces him/herself in plenary and explains why s/he selected the image. C. TECHNIQUES FOR THE FORMATION OF SMALL GROUPS Objective To form small groups to work on an issue. C.1 Life Rafts Use This is a lively and participatory way to form small groups, and to learn the characteristics of the participants. Process 1. A space is created in the room (free of furniture) so that people can walk around. 2. The participants are told to walk around the room in a random fashion, imagining that they are on the deck of a large ship, enjoying the sun and fresh air. Then, they are told that the ship is sinking and that they quickly need to form groups of four people because that is the number of people that can fit in each life raft. This process is repeated several times and people are encouraged to act more quickly so that they do not drown. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 240

242 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 3. The facilitator can also announce the existence of rafts for different types of groups, for example, rafts for people from different regions of the country, for single men and women, for people of certain age groups, for those in different occupations, for women, etc. This is especially useful when the group of participants is really heterogeneous and there is a desire to visualize the different perspectives that are present. C.2 The Market Use This is a graphic way to form small groups when the facilitator wishes to predetermine their makeup. Process 1. The facilitator determines how many groups will be formed, how many people will be in each group, and the composition of each group (by region, work area, sex, racialethnic group, etc.) 2. Cards are prepared in advance with different fruits and vegetables that might be found in a market. 3. The facilitator gives a card to each participant. Upon receiving cards, the participants begin to shout out the names of their fruits or vegetables as if they were selling in the market. Those people who have the same fruit or vegetable form a group. Objective D. TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYSIS To share tools that can be used to analyze an issue in a participatory fashion. D.1 Fishing Use This is a participatory and fun technique that encourages analysis of issues. It is particularly useful before an issue is examined in-depth or new content is presented. Process 1. In advance, the facilitator makes a set of fish out of poster board in a variety of colors. Each fish has a question written on it that helps guide the analysis of the issue that is the focus of the activity. Each fish also should have a hole, at least two WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 241

243 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 centimeters wide, where a clip can be inserted. Three or four strings are prepared with an open clip on the end that can be used for fishing. 2. Three or four groups are formed and each group is asked to select one of its members to be the fisherperson. 3. The facilitator places the fish on the floor and gives instructions to the fisherpersons to catch all the fish they can until none remain. 4. In plenary, each team responds to the question found on each of their fish and the facilitator invites the other groups to take part in the discussion of the topic at hand. 5. Finally, the facilitator synthesizes the discussion on a sheet of newsprint. D.2 Taking Positions Use This exercise encourages participants to take positions with respect to particular issues under discussion, after having examined them in depth. It is a participatory, lively, and dynamic exercise that can be used with large groups. Process 1. In advance, the facilitator prepares several statements related to the issue being addressed. The statements should be ones that do not necessarily have an objectively correct or incorrect answer. (For example, The approval of the proposal is the most important outcome of an advocacy process. ) 2. The facilitator makes a line with masking tape down the center of the room, dividing the space into two sections of the same size. One side is for agreement, and the other side for disagreement. Everyone is instructed to stand on the line. 3. When the facilitator reads a statement about the issue under discussion, the participants place themselves on one side of the line or the other, depending on whether they agree or disagree. If they feel strongly about the issue, then they stand at a distance from the line, and if they feel less strongly they stand near the line. The idea is to get people to react quickly without first checking how others are positioning themselves. 4. After everyone has taken a position, the facilitator invites several people to share the reasons why they are standing on one side or the other. The important thing is to express different opinions, ask questions, and have a debate. It is not about convincing everyone to take the same position. However, after someone explains her/his reasoning, other participants can change their positions if they so desire. 5. After a few people respond, the next statement is read and everyone begins again from the line. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 242

244 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 6. After each statement is addressed, the facilitator briefly summarizes the discussion and records issues or hurdles that the group will need to come back to at another time. D.3 News Broadcast by the People Use This serves as a way to do a diagnostic survey or analysis about an issue, especially about the current political situation. It is an oral technique that encourages participation, creativity, and expression. It is useful as an instrument for the final evaluation of a workshop. Process 1. Small groups are formed (of 3 to 6 people) and are given instructions to write a journalistic dispatch or a brief message about an issue. The message should be based on a question. (For example: What is an important problem facing our region? What opportunities and obstacles exist when we try to do advocacy with the state on this issue?) The messages should be concise, informative, and creative. They should be based on the ideas from the group discussion and not on the spontaneous ideas of one speaker. 2. In plenary, one or more people from each small group present their broadcast of the news in three to five minutes. Afterward, one of the groups can be asked to do a news summary of all the presentations. 3. The facilitator encourages other people to share their opinions, especially if there is not consensus about the analysis of one or more of the groups. The facilitator does a summary of the information and analysis presented, drawing some general conclusions. D.4 The Gift Use This can be used to analyze an issue in a fun and hands-on way. It works better with small groups (between 6 and 12 people). Process 1. Before the session, the facilitator prepares a large box with several small boxes nested inside. An envelope with a sheet of paper that has a question written on it about the issue under discussion is placed in each box, and the boxes are sealed with tape. The questions should be in a logical order (the question in the smallest box will be the last question to be discussed). WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 243

245 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 2. Pairs are formed and everyone stands around a table. The large box is placed on top of the table. The facilitator passes a dice from pair to pair, giving each pair an opportunity to roll it once. (In groups of fewer than 8 persons there is no need to form pairs). Each time a pair rolls a 2 on the dice (or whatever other number is designated), they have the right to open a box. 3. Each time a box, and the envelope inside, is opened, the question is discussed by the group. The game continues until all of the boxes have been opened and all of the questions finished. The last box should contain not only the envelope with a question inside but also a small gift like a piece of candy for each person. 4. When the game is over, the facilitator does a synthesis of the important points of the discussion. E. TECHNIQUES FOR CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING AND ORGANIZATION Objective To stress the importance of unity, organization, and planning in processes of social change. E.1 The Tied-up Cat Use This exercise allows a group to reflect on the importance of communication in organized strategies for change. It is lively and dynamic. Process 1. The facilitator asks for five volunteers. A circle about two meters in diameter is marked in tape on the floor. A chair is put in the middle of the circle. 2. One of the five people is loosely tied to a chair with a rope. The facilitator should make sure that the person chosen has a good sense of humor and will not have a panic attack when tied up. That person represents the tied-up cat. 3. Three other people are given handkerchiefs to put in their back pants pockets. Part of the handkerchief should be visible. One of their arms is also tied behind their back (with a belt). Those people represent the companion cats of the tied-up cat. 4. The fifth person represents the tiger. The tiger stays in the circle, protecting its prisoner, the tied-up cat. The other three cats have the objective of rescuing their companion from the circle by untying him or her. The person who assumes the role of the tiger should be someone who is very active with a lot of energy. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 244

246 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 5. The facilitator gives the following instructions: If the tiger takes the handkerchief from a cat, that cat is out of the game. Only one companion cat can come into the circle at a time. The cats cannot talk among themselves. 6. The first round is played. If the tied-up cat is not rescued, another round is played. 7. Before beginning the second round, the facilitator tells the companion cats that they can meet and talk before the round begins. 8. The game continues until the tied-up cat is rescued or until all of the cats are out of the game. 9. Then, reflection is encouraged by asking: How did the companion cats feel during the first round? How did you feel in the second round? What did you do to liberate the tied-up cat? What worked well and what did not work well? How did the tiger feel? What strategy did s/he adopt? How did the tied-up cat feel? What does this game have to do with the way that we organize? What did the handkerchief, the ropes, and the tiger represent? What factors help make a strategy successful? 10. The facilitator reflects with the participants about the importance of communication, planning, and collective work for strategies of change. E.2 The Dangerous Crossing Use This technique stresses the importance of collective work and thinking through strategies before carrying them out, taking into account the strengths of the group, the established mechanisms, the context of influential actors, and internal democracy. This exercise is lively and participatory and requires a large physical space and the use of sturdy chairs. It is best used with groups of 6 to 15 people. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 245

247 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 Process 1. Two groups are formed. Two parallel rows of chairs (with approximately 6 to 8 chairs in each row) are set up with a space of at least three meters between the rows. Two volunteers are asked to act as judges and each stands at the end of one of the rows. 2. Each team is given three envelopes (or bags). Each has a slip of paper inside: one says corn, one chicken, and one wolf. The participants are allowed to examine the envelopes so they know what they contain. 3. The facilitator explains that the chairs represent a bridge over a river. The only way to cross the river is by walking over the top of the team s set of chairs. Only one person at a time can cross. Whoever is crossing should take an envelope to the other side and hand it to the judge waiting there. If the judge accepts the envelope then the person can try to bring over the next envelope. If the judge does not accept it, all of the envelopes are returned to the team and it has to start over. 4. The two teams are told that they should do everything possible to carry the three envelopes, one by one, to the other end of the chairs. The team that accomplishes this wins the game. 5. The judges are operating according to rules that have not been told to the other participants. Corn cannot be with the chicken (because it will be eaten), and the chicken cannot be with the wolf (because it will be eaten). In accepting or rejecting an envelope, the judge simply tells the team yes or no without explaining why. Two or three people can also be assigned to be observers. 6. The game ends when one of the teams is able to carry all three objects to the other side, following the rules. The solution is to: (1) take over the chicken; (2) take over the wolf, but pick up the chicken and bring it back to the other side; (3) leave the chicken at the beginning point and take over the corn, and finally (4) take over the chicken. The winning team explains the correct sequence to the other team. 7. The group discusses the following questions: What did you feel? What did you do? What was your strategy? How did you make decisions? Did everyone on the team make decisions together or did each person do whatever came to mind? How did you factor obstacles into your strategies? Did this game have any relation to the way that we do advocacy? In reality, what actors are represented by the different people in the game? 8. The facilitator does a synthesis of the main points of the discussion. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 246

248 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 Objective F. TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATION OF ACTIVITIES To collectively evaluate the main aspects of an activity in a creative and participatory way. F.1 Taking the Pulse of the Group Use This exercise obtains immediate general feedback about an activity, using words and audiovisuals. It is especially useful during longer training sessions to gauge the reactions of the participants after the first day of training, so that necessary adjustments can be made in the program for the remaining days. Process 1. The facilitator prepares a sheet of newsprint with drawings of faces showing different expressions: happy, bored, nervous, sleepy, annoyed, afraid, etc. There should be 6 to 10 faces. 2. The facilitator invites the participants to come forward and to write some symbol beside the face that most closely captures how they are feeling today. If someone does not find a face that represents his or her feelings, s/he can draw one. 3. The facilitator reflects with the group about the faces and draws some conclusions about the overall mood of the group, with ideas of how to improve the activities and keep up the energy of the participants. Participants make recommendations for the rest of the training session and the facilitator writes any agreements that are reached on a sheet of newsprint. F.2 Positive, Negative, Interesting Use This exercise allows for quick evaluation of a day s work. Process 1. The facilitator asks the group three questions to prompt discussion: What was most positive about what happened today? What was most negative about what happened today? WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 247

249 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 What was most interesting? 2. The facilitator asks for opinions in response to each of the questions. The members of the group respond verbally in plenary or by writing on cards, and the facilitator writes the responses on a sheet of newsprint. 3. Recommendations are solicited from the group about how to make improvements in the program for the remaining time. F.3 Bull s-eye Use This is a way of evaluating different aspects of an activity in a graphic and participatory manner. Process 1. The facilitator determines which aspects of the activity are to be evaluated. Aspects might include, for example, fulfillment of the activity s objectives, the method used, facilitation, group participation, logistics, handouts, and results. 2. The facilitator draws a bull s-eye on a sheet of newsprint for each aspect of the activity that is to be evaluated. Each bull s-eye should consist of four concentric circles, forming a central target area surrounded by three concentric bands. 3. The facilitator invites people to come forward one by one to indicate their evaluation of each aspect on the corresponding bull s-eye. Participants should mark the central target area if the aspect was excellent. The next band outward is for good, the band beyond that for fair, and the outermost band for poor. 4. After everyone has come forward to evaluate, the facilitator does a synthesis of the results and leads a brief discussion about each aspect that has been evaluated. 5. In closing, the facilitator asks for recommendations from the group about how to improve future activities. F.4 Evaluation from My Perspective Use This exercise allows participants to evaluate an activity on the basis of their own experience and learning, but does not allow for overall evaluation of the event. Process 1. On a sheet of newsprint, the facilitator draws a person with one foot in a bucket. Around the drawing s/he writes several questions: WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 248

250 MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 4 APPENDIX 3 Near the head: What did I learn? Near the heart: How did I feel during the activity? Near the hand: What did I do during the activity? Near the foot in the bucket: What errors did I commit? Near the other foot: How do I think I will put what I learned into practice? 2. Participants answer the questions on a blank sheet of paper. 3. In plenary, the facilitator encourages people to share what they have written. F.5 Complete the Sentences Use This exercise allows the activity to be evaluated in the participants own words and encourages dialogue and participation. Process 1. In advance, the facilitator prepares some phrases that allow participants to evaluate essential aspects of the activity. The participants are given sheets with phrases so that they can fill in the blanks in writing to form sentences. Some examples might be: For me, the most useful part of the activity was... The moment I liked most was... What I did not like about the activity was... The facilitation of the event was... The activity fulfilled my expectations because... The activity did not fulfill my expectations because... Something that was not clear to me was After all of the participants have answered the questions in writing, the facilitator reads one phrase at a time and invites people to share what they have written. Variation 1. The phrases can be written on sheets of newsprint with sufficient space underneath so that people can come forward and write their answers directly on it. 2. The questions can also be answered orally with the facilitator recording the participant s answers on a sheet of newsprint. WOLA, BROT FÜR DIE WELT, CEDPA PAGE 249